#you can find common ground with bad experience but identity based in your hate and trauma will never liberate us

[wild-at-mind]

I keep thinking about why it seems tumblr kids are so weird about reclaimed slurs like queer and whatnot, and based on my own experiences I've come up with a few ideas.

1. Reclaimed slurs within the lgbtq community are more complicated than some others, and often people like certainty. E.g. if you're not black, it's easy to know if saying the n word is ok: it's not. But with words like dyke, fag or even queer, I don't think the impulse to ask yourself whether you would have been targeted by someone saying this slur to hurt is a bad one. Wait wait come on let me finish, doesn't mean I think tagging '[whatever letter] slur' everywhere is the way to go. But I think thought and reflection on your actual life experiences are a good thing. That said I am so done with the annoying, inevitable 'can bi people say it?' shit when it comes to homophobic slurs. There is no need for big fuckoff barriers and gatekeeping. We're all complicated humans and the thing with life experiences is you keep having more every day, and sexuality and gender expression evolve throughout your life. A word you would say once you might find stops applying to you as an identity, and vise versa. That's why personal reflection is all I personally care about and not whatever identity you are. Not that what I say matters. But all these nuances don't translate well online and I think some people long for the simple 'if x, then don't say y'.

2. In your teens and early 20s I think extreme black and white thinking is more common, simply because you haven't had as much life experience and your brain isn't done developing. Plus it feels good to sort people into an in group and out group, because the harder you do this, the more you can belong with that in group. It seems like on tumblr and twitter a favourite way of putting people into an out group is to find some behavior your don't like, e.g. saying a word your in group deems a slur that no one should be using. That person now officially sucks and you can warn others about them, reinforcing your in group as the safe one. I remember absolutely loving this kind of thing in my early 20s, my ocd brain adored the simple black and white, good and evil ness of it all. I would mentally sort tjmblr users into good and bad. If I wasn't sure where to stand on an issue, and the middle ground wasn't an option (you could get viciously attacked and shamed all over tumblr for not being strong enough on an issue, probably you still can), then i would 'root' for the angriest side. Usually the one saying 'x is bad' and not 'x is good, because avoiding saying or doing something has to be safer than doing it, right?

Then I got a bit older (and got on the right meds but that may have been a coincidence), and fucking hell I HATE 'discourse' now. I just can't stomach it. I love nuanced arguments and not seeing issues in black and white. I don't know what people see in it but I assume if you're younger and haven't seen this stuff a billion times before, and are seeking to belong, that probably helps.

3. With the word queer in particular, a lot of people tell the same story: 'well it was all the way reclaimed, but then TERFs came along and made people say q slur and all the kids don't know!' But that story is very simplified. Often the only proof given to strengthen it is 'my college campus in the mid 2000s had a queer studies degree '. In reality most people don't go to university, and your comfort with the word queer varies greatly depending on your life experience, which is affected by age, class and your specific identities within the lgbtq community. (People don't get to tell others what to call themselves, but I don't think they do that because they fell for some TERF logic. The idea of things being very simple and black and white, good and bad may be used by TERFs but its also used by groups with basically all and any ideologies, hateful or 'social justice' or anything. And there are people on here and twitter who are very vocal about never saying queer who are trans women and/or very anti TERF, which I imagine could throw you off if someone else is telling you only TERFs don't want people to say queer.) It's a simple story but things are never really that simple. Outside of specific online space things tend to be much less cut and dry.

Also, personally, I've always found queer and what it represents to be kind of a lot to live up to, because I have a massive complex about my own identity not bring good enough for this community. My own particular hang ups are not for me to try and push on others (they suck and I'm glad for people who don't have them!), but when I see people constantly try and get queer over as the perfect identity for confused people in our community, it does rankle a little. It doesn't work for my particular brand of confused and I've found that can be a lonely place to be. I've tried hard in the past to get people to understand, but they usually respond with yet more trying to get queer over. You can end up feeling a bit of a freak after a while!

Anyway, this is a long way of saying I have sympathy for the kids trying hard to say/not say the slurs correctly. The internet is a scary place for after all, it's a place where a post you didn't really think through enough can be seen by thousands of people who all suddenly hate you VERY quickly. A lot of these kids are protecting themselves the best ways they know how. Connecting strongly with real life communities may be a good antidote but as we know,not everyone is in a place where they can do that right now. Ideally we would have online spaces for isolated lgbtq teens and early 20s take place on platforms that DONT tacitly encourage this stuff. I can only hope. The freedom to make mistakes quietly in a post on a long forgotten forum must return!!

[a-room-of-my-own]

Have you read "An Apology to JK Rowling" by Petra Bueskens on Areo? I'm pathetically grateful to read something so clever and well articulated on the subject after the amount of abuse JK has been subjected to

It's a great piece so here it is, thank you anon!

 Rowling recently published an eminently reasonable, heartfelt treatise, outlining why it is important to preserve the category of woman. There’s only one thing wrong with it: it assumes a rational interlocutor. Rowling outlines why the biological and legal category of sex is important: in sports, in rape crisis shelters, in prisons, in toilets and changing rooms, for lesbians who want to sleep with natal women only and at the level of reality in general. Rowling marshals her experiences as an androgynous girl, as a domestic violence and sexual assault survivor and as someone familiar with the emotional perils of social media, in ways that have resonated with many women (and men). Her writing is clear, unpretentious, thoughtful, moving, vulnerable and honest. At no point does she use exclusionary or hostile language or say that trans women do not exist, have no right to exist or that she wants to rob them of their rights. Her position is that natal women exist and have a right to limit access to their political and personal spaces. Period.

Of course, to assume that her missive would be engaged with in the spirit in which it was intended, is to make the mistake of imagining that the identitarian left is broadly committed to secular, rational discourse. It is not. Its activist component has transmogrified into a religious movement, which brooks no opposition and no discussion. You must agree with every tenet or else you’re a racist, sexist, transphobic bigot, etc. Because its followers are fanatics, Rowling is being subjected to an extraordinary level of abuse. There seems to be no cognitive dissonance among those who accuse her of insensitivity and then proceed to call her a cunt, bitch or hag and insist that they want to assault and even kill her (see this compilation of tweets on Medium). She has been accused of ruining childhoods. Some even claim that the actor Daniel Radcliffe wrote the Harry Potter books—reality has become optional for some of these identitarians. Rowling’s age, menstrual status and vagina come in for particularly nasty attention and many trans women (or those masquerading as such) write of wanting to sexually assault her with lady cock, as a punishment for speaking out. I haven’t seen misogyny like this since Julia Gillard became our prime minister.

The Balkanisation of culture into silos of unreason means that the responses have not followed what might be loosely called the pre-digital rules of discourse. These rules assume that the purpose of public debate is to discern truth and that interlocutors on opposing sides—a reductionist bifurcation, because, in fact, there are many sides—engage in argument because they are interested in something higher than themselves: an ideal of truth, no matter how complicated, multifaceted and evolving. While in-group preferences and biases are inevitable, these exist within an overarching deliberative framework. This style of dialogue assumes the validity of a persuasive argument grounded in reason and evidence, even if—as Rowling does—it also utilises experience and feeling. By default, it assumes that civil conflict and opposition are essential devices in the pursuit of truth.

Three decades of postmodernism and ten years of Twitter have destroyed these conventions and, together with them, the shared norms by which we create and sustain social consensus. There is no grounding metanarrative, there are no binding norms of civil discourse in the digital age. Indeed, as Jaron Lanier shows with his bummer paradigm (Behaviours of Users Modified and Made into an Empire for Rent) social media is destroying the fabric of our personal and political lives (although, with a different business model and more robust regulation, it need not do so). The algorithm searching for and recording your every click, like and share, your every purchase, search term, conversation, movement, facial expression, social connection and preference rewards engagement above all else—which means that your feed—an aptly infantile descriptor—will quickly become full of the things you and others like you are most likely to be motivated to click, like and share. Outrage is a more effective mechanism through which to foster engagement than almost anything else. In Lanier’s terms, this produces a “menagerie of wraiths”—a bunch of digitised dementors: fake and bad actors, paid troll armies and dyspeptic bots—designed to confect mob outrage.

The norms of civil discourse are being eroded, as we increasingly inhabit individualised media ecosystems, designed to addict, distract, absorb, outrage, manipulate and incite us. These internecine culture wars damage us all. As Lanier notes, social media is biased “not towards the left or right but downwards.” As a result, we are witnessing a catastrophic decline in the standards of our democratic institutions and discourse. Nowhere is this more evident than in the contemporary culture wars around the trans question, where confected outrage is the norm.

This is why the furore over Rowling’s blog post misses the point: whether we agree with her or not, the problem is the collapse of our capacity to disagree constructively. If you deal primarily in subjective experience and impulse-driven reaction, under the assumption that you occupy the undisputed moral high ground, and you’ve been incited by fake news and want to signal your allegiances to your social media friends, then you can’t engage in rational discussion with your opponent. Your stock in trade will be unsubstantiated accusations and social shaming.

In this discombobulating universe, sex-based rights are turned into insults against trans people. Gender-critical feminists are recast as immoral bigots, engaged in deliberately hurtful, even life-threatening, speech. Rowling is not who we thought she was, her ex-fans wail, her characters and plots conceal hidden reservoirs of homophobia and bigotry. A few grandstanders attempt to distinguish themselves by saying that they have always been able to smell a rat—no, not Scabbers—and therefore hated the books from the outset. Nowhere amid this morass of moral grandstanding and outrage is there any serious engagement with her ideas.

Those of us on the left—and left-wing feminists in particular—who find trans ideology fraught, for all the reasons Rowling outlines, are a very small group. While Rowling is clearly privileged, she has also become the figurehead of a rapidly dwindling and increasingly vilified group of feminists, pejoratively labelled terfs, who want to preserve women’s sex-based rights and spaces. Although our arguments align with centrist, conservative and common sense positions, ours is not the prevailing view in academia, public service or the media, arts and culture industries, where we are most likely to be located (when we are not at home with our children). In most of these workplaces, a sex-based rights position is defined a priori as bigoted, indeed as hate speech. It can get us fired, attacked, socially ostracised and even assaulted.

As leftist thinkers who believe in freedom of speech and thought, who find creeping ideological and bureaucratic control alarming, we are horrified by these increasingly vicious denunciations by the left. The centre right and libertarians—the neo-cons, post-liberals and the IDW—are invariably smug about how funny it is to watch the left eat itself. But it’s true: some progressive circles are now defined by a call out/cancel culture to rival that of the most repressive of totalitarian states. Historically, it was progressives who fought against limits on freedom of speech and action. But the digital–identitarian left split off from the old print-based left some time ago, and has become its own beast. A contingent of us are deeply critical of these new directions.

Only a few on the left have had the gumption to speak up for us. Few have even defended our right to express our opinions. Those who have spoken out include former media darlings Germaine Greer and Michael Leunig. Many reader comments on left-leaning news sites claim that Rowling is to blame for the ill treatment she is suffering. Rowling can bask in the consequences of her free speech, they claim, as if having a different opinion from the woke majority means that she is no longer entitled to respect, and that any and all abuse is warranted—or, at least, to be expected. Where is the outrage on her behalf? Where are the writers, film makers, actors and artists defending her right to speak her mind?

Of course, the actors from the Harry Potter films are under no obligation to agree with JK Rowling just because she made them famous. They don’t owe her their ideological fealty: but they owe her better forms of disagreement. When Daniel Radcliffe repeats the nonsensical chant trans women are women, he’s not developing an argument, he’s reciting a mantra. When he invokes experts, who supposedly know more about the subject than Rowling, he betrays his ignorance of how contested the topic of transgender medicine actually is: for example, within endocrinology, paediatrics, psychiatry, sociology, and psychology (the controversies within the latter discipline have been demonstrated by the numerous recent resignations from the prestigious Tavistock and Portman gender identity clinic). The experts are a long way from consensus in what remains a politically fraught field.

Trans women are women is not an engaged reply. It is a mere arrangement of words, which presupposes a faith that cannot be questioned. To question it, we are told, causes harm—an assertion that transforms discussion into a thought crime. If questioning this orthodoxy is tantamount to abuse, then feminists and other dissenters have been gaslit out of the discussion before they can even enter it. This is especially pernicious because feminists in the west have been fighting patriarchy for several hundred years and we do not intend our cause to be derailed at the eleventh hour by an infinitesimal number of natal males, who have decided that they are women. Now, we are told, trans women are women, but natal females are menstruators. I can’t imagine what the suffragists would have made of this patently absurd turn of events.

There has been a cacophony of apologies to the trans community for Rowling’s apparently tendentious and hate-filled words. But no one has paused to apologise to Rowling for the torrent of abuse she has suffered and for being mischaracterised so profoundly.

So, I’m sorry, JK Rowling. I’m sorry that you will not receive the respectful disagreement you deserve: disagreement with your ideas not your person, disagreement with your politics, rather than accusations of wrongspeak. I’m sorry that schools, publishing staff and fan clubs are now cancelling you. And I’m sorry that you will be punished—because cancel culture is all about punishment. I’m sorry that you are being burned at the digital stake for expressing an opinion that goes against the grain.

But remember this, JK—however counterintuitive this may seem to progressives, whose natural home is on the fringe—most people are looking on incredulously at the disconnect between culture and reality. Despite raucous protestations to the contrary, you are on the right side of history—not just because of the points you make, but because of how you make them.

[fromtheplanethexagon]

the robot problem: a critical look at tobecky, 5 years late

hello wordgirl fandom i am back :) and i have a lot of thoughts that i never got around to expressing before i moved on from the show. so be aware that everything i'm saying is based on my experiences during the 2012-2016 era of the fandom & state of tumblr in general, and i am not familiar with more recent fan content.

it's been over five years since the show ended, and @ifbrd​ reminded me (along with some great analysis) that while tobecky was super popular since before the show technically started (thanks to the play date shorts), it's pretty unhealthy in a lot of ways that tend to be excused or flat out ignored in fanworks. i'd like to reflect on that a bit (a lot); specifically, how both the show and the fandom approached this enemies-to-lovers ship, and how easily this ship can slip into uncomfortable territory if we're careless about how we interpret the ship and create fan content of it.

i will admit, i'm mostly writing this as a response to past me and my old creations - though i moved on from the show as a whole years ago, i do like taking the time to reflect on old interests once in a while, and reevaluating my thoughts on them. and this ship is probably the biggest one that still lurks in the corners of my mind once in a while, so let's go.

cherish is the word: a short positive note before a much longer negative one

i wanted to start this essay off with some positivity, because i am going to be very negative after this. tobecky was, in some ways, cute. it's obvious from the very beginning that these two characters are on pretty equal ground, even if one of them isn't aware of it. and that's part of the fun - the irony of how unaware tobey is that his nemesis/crush/person that pretty much always wins against him is someone that he completely dismisses as incompetent. i want to point this out because honestly, in general i don't like enemies-to-lovers because a lot of them use a power imbalance within the dynamic, and i hate power imbalances, especially when it comes to actual life-or-death scenarios (at least, as much as cartoons can do that). in most episodes, becky is never actually forced to go along with his wishes. she's not held in a 'date' against her will, nor is she ever really outwitted by him. i bring this up because there is one huge, uncomfortable exception, which i will get to later.

another big plus to the ship is the fact that they just... get along? even when fighting? of course we get brief moments where they just hang out and talk about paintings or whatever, but i'm talking about how much they get each other, even if they don't realize it. like the word banter, for example. been there since day one. becky loves words, and while most other people in her life don't really care (ranging from 'eh, that's cool i guess' to her brother calling it annoying), tobey gives her a chance to show off and thus treats her as a worthy adversary as herself, not because of her more generic superpowers - something that we've seen in canon that she feels self-conscious about (see: her motivation in patch game). one of the less noticed examples, to me, is "it's your party and i'll cry if I want to", because it's just - okay. they both are excluded from a social event, and while it's obvious that tobey deals with it by destroying the city, it's also pretty obvious that becky also deals with her frustration by fighting in that battle. like, yes, realistically it's just objectively bad that he's destroying buildings. but they're also providing each other with a way to work through their frustrations, first by fighting and then by talking things out, and finally by hanging out together instead of dwelling on being excluded from the party.

so it makes a lot of sense to me that many tobecky fans gravitated towards writing far-in-the-future fic, usually by implying that some growth had taken place before starting to write the ship. (there are, as far as i'm aware, 2... maybe 3 exceptions, that take the time to attempt a real redemption for him, at least when i left the fandom.) because if you take away his worst moments, either by reasoning out that he was 10 years old and a mess, or that he was a cartoon character in a cartoon world where everyone's actions are over-the-top, or by just flat-out pretending that certain episodes never happened, there's some pretty solid ground to start a ship on.

go gadget go: we all do not see it, we simply close our eyes (review of canon)

when the show began, i was the same age as the characters. a lot of other people were, too - at least in my cohort of the fandom. i think it's pretty safe to say that many of us have fond memories of the show's earlier seasons, and held on to that interest as we got older, for whatever reasons. so like, not to be all 'as an OG fan...', but i remember seeing the shorts air for the first time in 2006. i have a diary entry in july of 2009 about how i, a 12yo with no concept of the idea of 'shipping', was disappointed in the new tobey episode because i wanted more tobecky interactions. (that was robo-camping, btw, lol.) and so i remember how exciting their rivalry felt, watching them as someone literally their exact same age, and then watching that again as a nostalgic 17yo, and then uh... growing up, to put it frankly, and realizing just how unhealthy most of their interactions were.

okay what i meant to say was, this section is an overview of the relationship's canon portrayal throughout the years.

first, we have early tobecky: this includes the shorts and the first few seasons. this is their classic relationship: he likes her and takes robots on rampages to get her attention, she majorly disapproves and has fun taking him down. we've all seen the show, you know what i'm talking about. his backhanded ways of trying to find out her identity often feature prominently in the episodes, which - sigh, i've mentioned this whole issue before, but it's kind of a grey area in the whole uncomfortable-factor thing, because while trying to find out her identity is VERY invasive, it's something that like... everyone in the show tries to do, even her canon crush (scoops). on the one hand, it's really not a great look, but on the other hand, this is a cartoon meant to parody a genre in which this trope is extremely common. so i just wanna say that i have Issues and Thoughts on this aspect of their relationship, but there are other things i find more important to discuss here.

second, we have late tobecky: this is seasons 7-8. this is... a very strange and huge shift from the previous dynamic, though it's not necessarily obvious. what i mean by that is that for some reason, the show writers made it so that half of tobey’s rampages have nothing to do with his crush on wordgirl, even though that used to be the sole reason for his villainy. seriously. we have the birthday episode, where he's upset because he feels left out; wg vs tobey vs the dentist, where he's mad that he has a cavity; and trustworthy tobey, where his robot goes on a rampage... after becky accidentally makes it malfunction. the two outliers are ‘guess who’s coming to thanksgiving dinner’ and ‘patch game’, but they still differ from previous seasons because 1) his destruction is isolated to a forest far away from the city, and 2) his motive is still to impress wordgirl, but his methods are relatively tame. also he completely gives up on the secret identity thing??? i may have missed some things but i think he straight up tells her 'yeah there's no way you're wordgirl, lol' and the subject is just dropped for the rest of the show.

i also want to include 'the robot problem' here, because it's one of two season 6 tobey episodes, and follows the 'doesn't destroy buildings to get her attention' pattern: in fact, he teams up with her to try and stop someone else from going on a rampage (even if his reasons are selfish, lol).

and finally. the other season 6 episode. we have go gadget go, the bane of my time spent in the fandom. because GGG is the single episode where tobey truly manages to take away her autonomy, and proceeds to abuse that power for an extended period of time, for his own amusement. it's bad. it's Very Bad. put in the context that it's a white boy doing this to an (ambiguously) brown girl, it's REALLY REALLY BAD. and the more i look back on it, tbh, the more weirded out i am that the show not only made it seem like she wasn't affected at all within the episode, it just... forgot about it (which is not unusual for shows and especially children’s shows, but WG does make some efforts to either retain continuity or create canon reasons for why things are forgotten about). it's the kind of thing that you can't excuse and honestly you can't redeem (like at this point, you gotta ask yourself why you're spending so much effort trying to redeem this guy when becky has several other possible ships that are nowhere near this unhealthy - violet, scoops, honestly even victoria if you want another hero/villain ship, my absolute fave rarepair rose, etc).

so if you want to still ship it you have to just pretend that it never happened. (i remember trying for weeks to write something exploring the aftermath of this episode, to try and make myself feel better about it, but the more i wrote the more i realized just how traumatic this event should've been, so i eventually just dropped it.) and i brought up my own timeline of experiences earlier to point out that this episode aired eight whole years after the show started. which means that when i saw it, even though i was a huge stickler for canon at the time, i'd built up my own idea of the show and characters strongly enough to go 'yeah, no, this episode sucks and i am going to pretend that it doesn't exist'. and i think a lot of other people did too, because i really saw like... no one mention it, ever, except for some rogue fanfics over on ff dot net that already liked dynamics like that.

because here's the thing, and i don't know if people nowadays are aware of it? but i'm 80% sure (cannot find a source, so the other 20% is that it was just a rumor) that the show was originally supposed to end after season 6. and even if it's a rumor, it makes a ton of sense, because we get 1) an 'ending' to tobecky, which is a bad one, 2) a permanent wordgirl identity reveal that significantly changes one of the major dynamics in the show, 3) an episode where TJ gets to work with wordgirl and get a nice potential ending for their sibling dynamic, 4) an episode where we see Two-Brains explore life without his henchmen... the list goes on, and idk how many of these are just major stretches. but the point is. if the show had ended there, that would've been a pretty solid ending for many things, including their relationship: aka, it would prove that it was only ever heading somewhere bad, and when tobey finally has his moment of triumph, he is truly evil about it. and this provides us fans who HATE go gadget go with an easy reason to dismiss it - we can say that it was an attempt to conclude things in a way that wouldn't have happened if the writers had known they'd get more time. but despite that... it is still a canon episode.

it is odd to me how dramatically the dynamic shifts after that, though, because we seriously go from 'worst case ever, tobecky is toxic, your ship is dead' to 'no actually they get along and hang out and get ice cream together and tobey isn't even pressuring her into it, she's happy to go along with it :)' like, immediately. i never knew much about the show writers, so i don't know if the writers changed in between these seasons, but i would absolutely not be surprised if they did.

the earlier episodes are definitely problematic as well (though they pale in comparison to GGG) but i think everyone who ships it is aware considering that tobey is, yknow, a villain. from memory, he destroys buildings to get her attention, lies to her about the level of danger that people are in to trick her into spending more time with him, blackmails her into reading his poetry, and he creates a robot based on her that’s supposed to be devoted to him (but of course, all of these things backfire). not great stuff of course, but like... he’s a villain, that’s the point of his character. and considering that he’s a child these are things that can be redeemed, if done thoughtfully.

anyway, to sum up this section, the show starts off with a pretty standard 'enemies with an unrequited crush' setup, takes a really dark turn for a single episode, and then for the rest of the show takes their dynamic in a direction that makes it much, much easier to ship. as long as you ignore a lot of previous content.

wordbot: where's becky's autonomy in all of this? (misogyny)

we've finally gotten to the fandom. i recognize that a lot of this is going to come across as hypocritical considering how active i used to be re: this ship, but like... i'm a very different person now. anyway. disclaimer i guess - i don't write this to accuse all tobecky shippers of being like this - i know a lot of us aren't/weren't! but boy do i have things to point out, so without further ado:

it is very hard to ship this without allowing some bit of misogyny to slip into it. very, very hard. the entire premise of the ship involves a girl falling in love with a boy that repeatedly pressures her to date him via threats to the safety of herself and people she cares about, which... it's 2020, i shouldn't have to explain why that's terrible & a terrible example to set for children (which is why i am glad they never made it canon, tbh). best-case fan content has tobey stop pressuring her and start working to redeem himself out of an actual change of heart, which leads to becky seeing him in a new light. worst-case fan content treats his incessant pressuring and sometimes outright threats as something romantic - and even worse, romantic to the point where he deserves her attention and love as a reward for not giving up or whatever. i did see this pretty frequently for a while, especially in the earlier 2010s (didn't read much, Not My Thing At All), but i don't feel like going into detail here because of how obviously problematic it is. one medium (but still bad) case is where the fan content makes him start his redemption, but treats her liking him back as a reward for not knocking buildings over anymore. another not great case is where she tries to fix him with her love, which is a very common and very dangerous romantic trope. both are just... so incredibly unfair to her.

in content where she tries to 'fix him'... yeah i feel like it's really obvious how misogynistic that is. girls and women should not feel responsible for the evil actions of men, plain and simple. idk what else to say here i just really hate that trope and hated it back then and it just sucks! so can we not do that anymore, thanks.

in content that treats her like a reward for good behavior, there really isn't much of an explanation for what she sees in him. if she just goes 'oh wow, you're good now, i am going to fall in love with you for it' the whole thing falls flat because it makes NO sense whatsoever. we get to hear so much about tobey and his feelings and why he likes her and how he feels about it, but where is that energy for becky? why does she choose to trust him, to spend time around him, what does she enjoy about his presence? where is her getting over scoops in the process of falling for tobey? where is her telling her friends about this, confiding in them, asking them for advice? where is her choice in the matter?

win a day with wordgirl: do you guys even like becky or do you just like the idea of her (misogyny... 2!)

it was pretty standard for all fandoms the early-mid 2010s, but that's still not a good excuse for why so many tobecky fanfictions centered specifically around tobey's feelings while refusing to give becky the same level of empathy and nuance. it is true that to ship them comfortably you have to redeem him to some degree, which means spending time figuring him out and trying to find ways to pull him to the light without feeling super OOC. but ships take two people??? and there was so much potential for fanfics to explore becky's complex feelings on the matter - because she is! complex! she's heroic and kind but she's petty and has a competitive streak, she easily befriends villains but also doesn't trust them and doesn't believe they can ever really change, she's the savior of an entire planet but has feelings of inadequacy as her civilian identity and struggles with feeling like she can be successful without superpowers, she's great at the straightforward meanings and uses of words and loves reading but struggles to write passages that aren't dry as hell, it can be easily headcannoned that she's neurodivergent (special interests, issues with fitting in with her peers, taking things very literally, etc)... seriously there is SO MUCH to explore about her character, and a lot of it comes into play when you add tobey into the mix (literally ALL of the things i mentioned are explored at some point using tobey as a parallel or foil), but i rarely saw fanfiction that explored her thoughts on things further than 'he's evil but... maybe good?' or 'he's evil but... i kind of like him anyway?'.

if you want her to fall for him while being a villain, explore it!! why does she go against her morals? does she lie to herself about it to feel better? does she feel like she has to 'fix him' as part of her superhero duties to the city, and if so, how does that affect her as she tries and fails to help him? does she fall for him when she believes that he's turning good, only to feel betrayed when he starts acting worse because he feels like he can get away with it? it's such a shame that fanworks spend so little time even considering these questions, and it is absolutely a product of how deeply misogyny is/was baked into how we approach media (especially back then).

tobey goes good: but wait, i thought this show was progressive (a conclusion, i guess)

ifbrd wrote a great meta recently about how the show is a bit misogynist, despite being progressive in several ways. honestly i don't have much to add, but i'd really recommend reading through this; it makes a lot of great observations about the ways that male and female characters are presented differently through the show

i have little to add, so i'd just like to conclude with a reflection on the ship from my current viewpoint. i do think part of the reason so many of us latched onto the ship, despite how obviously problematic it was, is that the show treats a lot of things that would be serious in real life as normal or even comedic - which is fine lol, i'm not going to pretend that it's not a show for little kids, so they have to keep the tone light.

but if we, as teens/adults, decide to engage with this content in a more realistic manner, we have to be prepared to confront how messed up so many of the things going on really are. and if you still want to ship it, there's nothing inherently wrong with that! there's a lot of interesting things to explore in this ship, no matter what stage of enemies-to-friends-to-lovers you write them at, and it can be really helpful to have a space where you can explore a dynamic such as this in fiction. (speaking from experience here tbh, writing some fic for them helped me deal with complicated feelings about some ex-longtime friends.)

so to write this ship at all means that there are canon issues that you need to deal with if you want to have them end up in a healthy relationship in any manner that makes sense (unless you create an AU where none of that is applicable, which, power to you then). and i’m not saying ‘write them with a healthy endgame or you’re Bad’, not at all lol. but at least please, please take a step back once in a while to examine the dynamic that you’re writing, and please be careful about whether you mean to be romanticizing whatever behaviors you end up portraying as good.

[bella-in-a-bag]

Not mine

Ao3 

Masterpost

 - Next

Words: 2446  

Day 5 - Any intense emotions your soulmate feels you will also experience 

Maybe that was worse, because he was just broken and no one was to blame, just himself. Maybe he had repressed his feelings to the limit and they were retaliating, unlike, but he wasn't human after all. Maybe he deserves this and there is no reason, it just is and he has to accept that. 

Where Logan gets someone elses feelings.

Tags and triggers under cut

Hurt/Comfort, Unsympathetic Anxiety | Virgil Sanders, more or less, he's just mean and never actually in the story, just mentioned, it's implied that he's just stressed, mention of violence, Swearing, Remus doesn't get gross, , tw panic attacks implied

Logan didn't know how his chest had suddenly gotten so tight, his eyes watery and his gut twisted in a way that made him want to throw up. Feeling such an intense array of emotions left him unable to think, let alone reason his way out of something he didn't know the cause for. Just a minute ago, he was fixing Thomas's schedule to include his meeting with Joan, an action that he deemed deeply satisfactory, when a wave crashed into his train of thought. Anger for something he didn't know the motive but knew was wrong, as well as many other things he could only identify as a mixture of pride, guilt, grief and sadness.

Well, no use in trying to get something done now.

Logan was used to these impulses, as he liked to call them, but every time he suffered them he felt like the world was figuratively trying to crush him into a pile of dust, so maybe the appropriate term should be awareness of the situation. He didn't freak out when they happened, which was good, but the unpleasantness still stuck all the way through the episodes. Surprising no one, he hated them more than he hated Thomas pursuing theater and YouTube instead of a stable career, but unlike the latter, these problems only affected him. Maybe that was worse, because he was just broken and no one was to blame, just himself. Maybe he had repressed his feelings to the limit and they were retaliating, unlike, but he wasn't human after all. Maybe he deserves this and there is no reason, it just is and he has to accept that.

Logan realized that if Janus heard that he was going to get lectured, but he didn't really mind, not when his brain was spiraling back and forth between a decision he wasn't sure he was making himself. The pros and cons, the possible outcomes, the whole problem laid out to him in a way he could only watch someone from afar look at a map he couldn't see. It reminded him of the courtroom scenario, but at the same time the problem felt more trivial and more important. The stakes were high, he guessed while trying to assume the best decision based on the pieces he could get, but then a choice was made and anxiety filled his mind to the brim.

He almost didn't answer when he heard a knock on the door, too many things happening at once, but he pushed himself up his chair and answered with the loudest voice he could manage. "Who is it?" It still sounded too emotionally charged, or maybe it didn't and his ears were playing tricks on him. "Can I come in?" Still no answer to his question, but if he ignored them maybe they would go away. The three seconds he stood in the middle of his room waiting for an answer felt like an eternity, but to his dismay, that someone finally decided to reveal their identity.

"I'm Remus, Logan" he sounded far too broken for the Duke, and Logan deduced that wasn't good. "Can I come in?" The desperation in the voice pushed Logan to open the door and let him in, trying to look collected.

"How may I assist you?" He wanted to add that he couldn't even assist himself, but the thought remained in his head.

"I need you to coach me through Virgil's breathing exercises" it still felt wrong the way his voice broke when he said Virgil and why would he need them in the first place? Remus was becoming a decent distraction from his own problems, he realized as he tried to make sense of the situation. Logan gestured at the foot of his bed before beginning to speak.

"Ok, I want you to breathe in for four, hold for seven and exhale for eight" Remus simply nodded and Logan began the exercise, counting with his fingers when he saw the creative side struggling to follow his instructions. After 15 minutes and 23 seconds, Remus seemed to look more like himself and Logan stopped counting, finding comfort in the way his mind had started to function as well. Remus was looking at the ground while biting his nail and it didn't look like he was going to speak any time soon, but Logan needed to know what happened in order to help Remus. He might be also teeny tiny bit interested, but that is besides the point.

"If you are not comfortable you do not have to answer" Remus's finger was out of his mouth, good. "But may I ask what is bothering you, you seemed troubled. And by previous experiences, I assume you do not get easily troubled." Remus snorted, Logan wasn't sure why but that is a problem for another day.

"I might have fought with good ol' Virgin again, which might not have ended so good ol' ok" That usually didn't end up well, Logan remembered trying to comfort Virgil with Patton making cookies and Roman swearing revenge on the background.

"If you were in his room that would explain your distress"

"We were on common territory, so my bullshit comes exclusively from me."

"I wouldn't consider your stress fake, but did anything he said upset you into this state or was it the whole situation in general."

"Well, there were some things said." He paused for a moment, looking down weighting if it was worth it or not. Logan was beginning to think he would just get up and leave when he resumed talking, startling him just enough to make him flinch but improbable that the other side had noticed.

"I had this extremely good idea, you see. It was good, so good I was going to show it to Thomas. Not an intrusive thought, you don't need to worry legged dictionary, but an actual real plot for an episode." Logan nodded along, listening carefully to the side's words. "I made the mistake of telling Virgil, cause he was the only one around and I needed to tell somebody. He's still pissed that jay-nus got sort of accepted, hypocrite coming from him," Logan bit the urge to correct him, shifting a bit on the spot." so he didn't take well the idea of me making something useful. Or he was afraid that I wasn't going to make anything and kill Thomathy on the spot, but hey, same difference. He also called me something a bit ugly." Remus's voice shifted into Virgil's like second nature, which would make sense given Janus's history. "Yeah, well maybe you are better off trapped in the subconscious, no one wants you around anyway. I'm sure your brother won't miss you."

This time Remus didn't continue speaking and Logan understood that he wasn't getting more info right now.

"I am sorry Remus, Virgil has been a little over the edge lately with Janus up in the primary mindscape." Bad wording Logic, now he looks more sad. "I am in no way trying to excuse his actions, perhaps I could talk to him later. Make him see the error in his thinking, possibly getting him to apologize."

"Thanks Logan." Satisfactory, he isn't even using a nickname.

"If I’m not intruding too much, why didn't you go to Janus for help?"

"Intruding is my thing logical meat bag" That one's creative "but he's busy and you seemed good at comforting V-movie, so I guessed you could comfort me too. Well fuck me gently with a chainsaw, I sound like Roman."

"I guess you do not want anything to do with chainsaws, but I appreciate that you would come to me for help. I am not in any way qualified in dealing with emotions, but I am suitable for providing physical help, techniques do not depend in whether you are very sad or mad at someone eating your last crofter jar." Remus smiled, which was good.

"Well that was fun." Remus stretched and half laid on the bed, his legs dangling on the edge. "But you seemed pretty out of it Wikipedia, when I came in" So much for looking collected, then.

"I was not doing well, but I am fine now"

"You can't just not tell me what bothered you, I need to know what to hit." That was nice, in its own way.

"I am afraid you cannot hit my problems, Remus"

"If you don't tell me I'll have to disagree, Logan”

"Well, why would I lie to you if it doesn't benefit me?" A short idea dashed through Logan's head, and he followed it. "Remus"

"Janus lies without reason, Logan"

"I am sure he has his reasons, Remus"

"You don't know that, Logan"

"You don't know that either, Remus"

"Logan?"

"Remus?"

"You're good at avoiding issues, glasses." Maybe Logan laughed a bit, not that he would admit it.

"I like you, but if you don't tell me I won't leave your room till eternity." Logan did not appreciate the idea of Remus in his room for an eternity, whatever that meant given that Thomas, and per se his sides, won't live an eternity.

"It is difficult to explain, but let's just say that nothing caused my distress." Remus launched himself forward to sit down properly, one of his hands playing with his mustache.

"I belive I am feeling and experiencing things that haven't happened to me. I am unsure of the cause but I know for certain that it is not an emotional response to something that happened to my person."

"Do you know when it started?" Serious Remus voice, that is definitely scary.

"I do not remember"

"So you had a crisis but you didn't know why it happened."

"Yes and I did not tell you anything about a crisis, how do you- nmg" A hand pressed his lips together, making him unable to speak.

"I think I figured out and I am not smarter than you, probably." The hands off now, that's good.

"Well then, what is it?"

"I do not know how this happens, but I know why it does. Still no clue?"

"No, I am afraid I do not know. Emotions are not my expertise."

"I don't think this has anything to do with emotions. Ok, I'm going to give you the data and see if you can complete the puzzle, live up to your title Sherlock." That nickname made Logic all warm inside, not because he was being called Sherlock but because Remus meant it as a compliment and not an insult.

"You were feeling bad emotions but they weren't yours. I was feeling bad emotions. At the same time." Logan could almost physically feel the click his brain made while connected the dots, every time he had seen Remus sad or angry after he had had an episode, but as they have also happened without seeing him, there was no need to make a connection before. But it was obvious, of course it was. Obvious as it was, it still left option for a lot of questions, like for example, why?

“Ah, well.” Logan had to stop talking, the realization dawning on him. If this is what Remus was feeling, maybe that wasn’t so good. Because he knew what he had gone through, and if he had a reason, it had probably been worse. “Well, that is a lot to take in. Remus, you have gone through a lot.” A pause for air, so he wouldn’t drown in all the weird feelings he was having now. It was probably Remus, or him, or both. “You don’t need to deal with this alone anymore.”

“I wouldn’t want to drag you more into hell with me.” Sadness, and this time Logan knew it wasn’t his, even if Remus’s smile tried to convince him otherwise.

“You are not dragging me anywhere, because we are sitting on my bed and you did not choose your feelings to go to me.” Another beat of silence, this time less dense.

“I think it happens both ways.”

“Oh. That would make sense.” Logan did not want to think of what that implied, had the other side felt the anger he couldn’t control when it escaped its grasp and flooded his senses, or was he safe. No, he probably knows now, think clearly Logic.

“Don't worry dicktective, I’m not going to judge you. I don’t do that, not even kink shaming! Unless that is your kink, then maybe I’d make an exception for you.” Logan figured he tried to sound suggestive, but in all honesty he just sounded tired. He was tired too, so tired he could jawn. So he did, at the same time as Remus. Remus smiled afterwards, less maniacal, more soft. Logan smiled back.

“We are soulmates, Logan.” The logical side was taken aback. He barely knew Remus and he was sure that soulmates meant a declaration of love so good it was as if it was chosen by the universe.

“No?” Yes, appropriate response Logan, five stars would recommend.

“I mean, that’s the drill right?. We share emotions, we share a soul. Isn’t that soulmate 101.”

“Soulmates aren’t real, those are just fairy tales.”

“Maybe Thomas wanted them to be real, so he made them real in his messed up mind.”

“That, that actually makes sense.”

“Look, it’s even making me intelligent. I should hang around your room more often.” An offer perhaps, to see where this goes. Logan is very dense right now, but he nods unsure of everything.

“Why me? I’m the least emotional side.”

“That might be what you think, but you don’t know everything.”

“It’s terrifying.”

“Not knowing or soulmates?”

“Both.”

“I figured. I am pretty scary.” A feeling of discomfort, but this time is his own.

“Not you, emotions. I would react the same way if it was any other side. Maybe not Patton, as he insists on calling me his kiddo and that would be uncomfortable.”

“I’m morally depraved and it would still feel weird.”

“Yes.”

“Yeah.” Silence, this time they are just lost in thought. A minute passes, maybe ten. Logan isn’t keeping track of time. It doesn’t matter anymore, not when his world just tilted a bit to the side.

“Logan?”

“Remus?”

“How the fuck are we going to tell the others?”

“We'll figure it out, let's worry about ourselves now.”

"Thanks Lolo."

"You're welcome Remus."

He wasn’t really sure of anything. But with Remus by his side, sounding so confident and yet so scared, maybe things would turn out ok. He was greeted with happiness, a feeling that wasn’t his but still belonged, somehow. And somehow, he knew Remus was receiving happiness as well.

@tsshipmonth2020

[readingsbylibramc]

birth chart reading for @baggable

hello! welcome to your reading. I’m gonna give you a quick overview of what I’m going to analyze about your natal chart. feel free to ask me anything if something isn’t clear, of course. you’ll find out your dominants’ influence on your persona, your physical appearance, impression on others and the way you approach the world; your ego, identity, the real you; your reactions, your desires, inner emotions; your way of expressing your feelings, your mind and ideas; your desires and approach to love; your energy tank, instincts and temperament; in-depth analysis of each house with their rulers and analysis of heavy aspects; love life + soulmates/karmic partners interpretation; your relationship with your friends; your family life; your approach to career and work in general + possible jobs suggestion; your style, fashion sense analysis; life purpose and past life description; basic transits’ analysis to describe your current mood and, last but not least, your secret skills, how to make the most out of your soul and manifest what you desire based on your birth chart.

🦋 chart shape, dominants

your chart is a seesaw shape. your life focuses on different ideals and interests, often constrasting between each other. from one side, this gives you the ability to be adaptable and find solutions easily. on the other hand, you may struggle with balance; for example, you might find yourself dedicating your life to your relationships, neglecting your ego or viceversa. you need to learn how to harmonize these energies.

your dominant planets are the moon, mercury and jupiter. you are a very genuine person, you always have good intentions and you're very altruistic, you always try to do good for others. you're very sensitive and empathetic, even though you could sometimes be quite moody and impulsive. you are also very intelligent, and you most likely have a great sense of humor.

your dominant sign is cancer. you seek emotional security in life. you need to feel grounded, you're most likely extremely cautious about the decisions you make. you're also very sensitive and compassionate of others, even though you could get slightly passive from time to time.

your dominant element is fire. you have a warm heart, even though it may be covered by your confidence and independence. in fact, you always strive for the first place. people may be intimidated by your presence, as you're a serious competitor. thanks to this competitive nature of yours you may be very positive and optimistic, making you a good and supportive friend/partner.

🌎 ascendant in virgo, 11° / 2nd decan ruled by mercury and saturn

you have a practical approach to the world. you’re kind of logical, it’s hard for you to improvize. you always want to keep everything neat and organized, at least in your mind. you could have a natural coldness to your face. you may seem a bit older than you are, or at least very mature and responsible, even though you may be more outgoing than you look due to your sagittarius and cancer placements. with your attentive eyes, you pay attention to every single detail you see. you’re a perfectionist, and you always want and try to be at your best state. I would say you’re quite competitive when it comes to your goals, but you don’t really do it to be above others. you do it because your obsession for details kind of stresses you out. improving and proving yourself is a way to boost your self-esteem, you feel fulfilled when you can achieve your goals. you are extremely intelligent and logical, you’re always up for a deep talk or simply for an occasion to gain more knowledge. you like being smart, you always want to know about everything. even the latest, trendy meme counts for you. your nature is very cautious; you’re rarely impulsive, you always think deeply about your decisions, as you don’t want to commit any mistakes. because of that, you can be particularly picky. not only with material things such as movies, books, food etc. but even with people. it’s hard for you to open up to someone you don’t know at all. you take things slow, both in friendships and in relationships, just to preserve yourself. you may come off as kind of snobby, but you’re just misunderstood. you don’t like flaky bonds, you need security in your life. physically, as I’ve already mentioned before, you have this kind of strict look on your face. your eyes may be almond-shaped, and you could have a natural feline gaze. overall, you have something smaller about your features; you could have thin lips, a small nose, small eyes… you could have a smaller frame with thin bones, and you don’t gain weight easily. you may be of average height, and I’ve noticed that most virgos tend to have pretty long legs? no matter if they’re tall or not, their legs will still be longer than their bust. you could also have some rounder features to your face or body, such as an apple body shape, plump lips or round, watery eyes

virgo ascendant square sagittarius moon: you may have troubles understanding others’ real feelings for you. you may feel as if everyone hates you, like everyone is talking behind your back when it’s the opposite. the sun being in cancer doens’t help either, as this aspect enhances its trust issues even more. you’re particularly sensitive about others’ view and opinion of you, you may get deeply hurt when people criticize you. you could have the tendency to act differently than you usually do, in order to preserve your feelings. this is obviously a toxic behaviour, that fills you up with your own stress and doubles it. due to that, you may become very moody and nervous, ending up hurting others yourself. or maybe, it’s the other way around; your feelings are so overwhelming that you can’t hide them, and that could put you in embarrassing, unpleasant situations. you may show all of your emotions on your face, ready to be read. the way to cope with this placement is finding someone similiar to you; someone who’s trust-worthy, and very sensitive and empathetic too. someone who’d never judge you for you think or say, and that would always help you becoming the best version of yourself. someone that understands you, without having to explain all of your behaviours and habits.

virgo ascendant square sagittarius pluto: you're aware that the world is too nasty for your honesty, hence you may have trust issues. even though you are friendly, you're very picky about who you decide to actually call your friend. you may constantly feel lonely, as if no one were willing to listen and understand you. you live with the fear that others may take advantage of you, hence you end up doing it yourself, unconsciously. you may be controlling, but your chart hints that it's not too much of a big deal. you may have the tendency to do it sometimes, but it's mostly a bad trait of your past life. the universe is testing you to see if you've learned your lesson or not. you have all the skills to avoid this type of behaviour now that you're aware of it.

🌞 sun in cancer, 4° / 1st decan ruled by the moon

this is the darkest, most intense cancer decan. even though you may not show it due to your heavy sagittarius and virgo influence, you’re actually very vulnerable and sensitive. you may be a crybaby, as crying is a way to vent your emotions. you may even overreact, and be considered too dramatic. you’re extremely moody; you could be all happy and relaxed with your friends, then suddenly you get sad, or even angry. it’s hard to deal with this, especially because your emotions are quite intense. this could make you argue a lot with your peers. even though it takes you a while to find someone willing to stay, when that moment finally comes you’ll embody cancer’s best trait: that is, you’ll become a ‘mother’ to your friends, lover etc. you have a very nurturing soul, you have a knack for affection and care, and you could even get kind of clingy, even though you may feel limitated to give your love to someone else. cancer is a cardinal sign, hence you may be the one to take initiative, yet you do it undirectly. you’re probably the passive-aggressive type, even though this may be mitigated by your dramatic and impulsive sagittarius moon. you most likely try to be patient, even though you could struggle with that due to your fire dominance. you may also hold a grudge easily; once someone tries to take advantage of you, it’s over for them.

🌙 moon in sagittarius, 9° / 1st decan ruled by jupiter

you're an outgoing and warm person, who always tries to make others feel at ease. I assume you try to be nice to everyone, but you can't help but be a little awkward around people you don't know. with your sagittarius moon, you go with the flow and don't shy away from challenges. they're moments to prove your potential and abilities. you are an extremely open-minded person, you rarely judge a book by its cover. you probably despise racism, homophobia, misogyny etc. with a passion (as you should tbh). you may also be into poetry, philosophy, and just anything that can stimulate both your mind and feelings. in fact, your mind is constantly wandering somewhere else, allowing you to travel with your fantasy. you're also probably attracted to foreign things, like people, music, fashion, languages, movies etc. you love learning about anything, and you may also have a good memory. in fact, it’s common for you to be the one who explains things and possibly even leads a group, and this could unluckily make you seem as a know-it-all. you do take pride in your wisdom, indeed. your deep way of thinking is also where your desire for freedom comes from, as you wish to be able to expand yourself through travelling and new experiences. when you get angry, you can actually get very rude and offensive, even towards authorities. you’re short-tempered, and you despise being told what to do. you’re also a good, loyal friend, and you’re the type to stand up for them and defend them during a fight. you’re friendly, especially with people you feel comfortable with, and you probably love talking. you’re able to put a smile on others’ face just by telling your stories, even though you never truly go in-depth. you're quite optimistic, as you see good in everyone. yet, while this is a good trait that allows you to be more at ease in relationships, you may also be fooled easily due to your blind optimism.

sagittarius moon conjunct sagittarius pluto: you’re way more secretive and cautious than most sagittarius moon people. you tend to preserve yourself, even though it’s hard for you to repress your emotions, as they’re too to intense to bottle them up. you absorb people’s feelings like a sponge, there’s no way that you won’t instantly understand their real emotions. overall, you tend to overreact a lot; you have cancer's sensitive energy on one side and pluto’s mysterious, almost scary vibe on the other. dealing with these emotional burnouts may be stressing to you, as you totally get caught up in them. even if it looks like you get to know other people often, you actually don’t let others know you. you’re the type of person to talk and socialize, but you never reveal your deepest fears and thoughts to strangers. you only open up to people you’re sure you can trust. when you’re angry, you can literally go as far as using violence; you need to let out your emotions by screaming, swearing… anything that can make you feel better. there’s a secret, sensitive side in you that needs passionate and romantic partners in love. yet, you can’t help but feel more attracted to the ones that may hurt you badly. you’re possibly quite sensitive to higher entities too, like ghosts, spirits and so on.

🗣 mercury in cancer, 29° / 3rd decan ruled by the moon and neptune

you don't really rely on logic. you're very emotionally intelligent, and you take in consideration others' feelings when you speak. even though you may be impulsive and blunt sometimes, you don't do it with malice at all. you may actually feel guilty after you realize that you've hurt someone. you may be sort of manipulative, as you're very observant of others' behaviours. because of that, you may be extremely good at interacting with others, since you know how to speak to people when you don't let your impulsiveness get over you. you know how to persuade others, even though you may not even realize it. if you manage to balance your moon and your mercury, I think it would give you great social skills. you'd be able to stand up for yourself, while also being mindful and conscious of the effect of your words on others. you may get defensive quite easily, and because of that you may become a bit secretive. that's because, deep down, you feel the need to be understood to fully convey and express your emotions. you want to feel at home with your interlocutor, otherwise you'll just be awkward. on the other hand, you have a nice sense of humor, you're able to light up the room with your jokes. your voice may be nasal, but pretty much very gentle and feminine as well.

cancer mercury square libra mars: this placement makes you slightly more aggressive with your words. as a result, it makes you look more assertive and almost bossy. you could often attack people with words when you get angry, and you can get quite provocative too, even though it may happen in a more passive way. you still have your cancer energy's kindness and diplomacy in you, after all. even though you’re quite controversial for the way you speak, you’re still very sensitive to others’ words. your self-esteem tends to find its base mostly on others’ opinion about you, and you always look for reassurance from your loved ones. to deal with this hard aspect, you need to think before you speak. if you have troubles understanding others’ feelings, just think about how you’d love to be treated. patience will just come naturally to you.

cancer mercury square aries saturn: this placement gives you limitations and lessons regarding the way you think and talk. it may be that you’re too shy to approach others and to say what you think, so you just don’t try. otherwise, if you actually take action and try to overcome this problem, you could get into troubles. that’s probably caused by the fact that you don’t really pay attention to your words. you’re quite straight-forward, and due to your mars energy you always seem as if you’re up for a fight. you may be particularly pessimistic, or maybe you lack confidence in social interactions due to these problems, which could be possibly caused by your parents, or perhaps interfer in your relationship with your family. in fact, you may argue quite often with others, and misunderstandings are also common. this is something that gets naturally better with time, but in order for it to happen you need to take action. you may for example start speaking with others more at work, anything that allows you to challenge your mind and voice, in order to make you gain experiences and become a master at it. many celebrities, once they mastered this hard aspect, got loads of success. you can do that too, you just need to work on it.

❤️ venus in leo, 18° / 2nd decan ruled by the sun and jupiter

with leo venus you're very picky, as you have high expectations for your future partner. you always try to be at your best state, and you want those who surround you to be perfect too. it's hard for you to fall for someone, as you take everything in consideration: personality, physical appearance, fashion sense... it may look like it is too much, but once you find the right one that truly satisfies your standards, you're in for a long ride. you'll want to travel, live your life in the best way possible with the person you love. you look at them as if they were the brighest star in the sky, and you want to be seen like this as well. you may even be a bit clingy, but your partner needs to be aware of that. they can't repress your need for affection. you see love as a way to revive your inner child, you feel younger when you're in love. even though you want someone fun and outgoing, you also need someone ambitious, hard-working and generally serious when it comes to committing. there's no room in your life for flaky people.

leo venus square taurus saturn: you feel unable to love someone. this placement usually brings fear of committing, causing the individual to be flaky. there are two possibilities; I assume you directly avoid to get into relationships. your mind may unconsciously repress any thought about an eventual crush or love interest. it is caused by your insecurity, especially regarding your looks. or perhaps, it’s the other way around: you literally jump into relationships, resulting in you getting hurt from time to time. you could feel pressured to be in a relationship, even though it’s not your priority. generally, when saturn affects venus, it indicates that you're only going to get into satisfying relationships in your 30s, so it's recommended to get married after your saturn return, which happens around your 27/28 years.

☄️ mars in libra, 27° / 3rd decan ruled by venus and mercury

there’s this stereotype that libra mars people are passive-aggressive. it may be true, but only partially. in fact, you try to avoid conflicts exclusively when you’re in public, or maybe with someone you don’t know well. in that case, you can eventually try to avoid the problem. with people you’re close to, you’re pretty much the opposite. you may say the worst of things that you probably don’t even feel, you may even have the istinct to throw hands. you’re driven by a strong sense of justice, and you probably were the class’ snitch during daycare/primary school. you also strive for equality, hence you may get very defensive when it comes to proving your innocence, or just really anyone’s. overall, you’re a fair person with strong morals, who acts based on the situation you’re in.

libra mars opposite aries jupiter: you easily come off as more assertive and arrogant than you actually are. you say things impulsively, and sometimes you’re too blunt and hurt people’s feelings. you don’t do it on purpose, though, there’s no malice behind your acts; it’s just your natural way to express your opinions. you’re also very competitive, and this may make you look selfish. on a positive side, you probably have a naturally nice body (or maybe you react fast to diet/workout). you’re a risk-taker, and if you’re not you should try breaking the rules sometimes (obviously not doing illegal stuff lol). in fact, it’s when you’re both physically and mentally active that you’re able to come up with even better ideas, as you’re full of creativity. to cope with this placement, you can try doing something fun to challenge your mind, basically get out of your comfort-zone. of course you don’t have to overdo it, but it would be beneficial.

🏡 houses

your 1st house is in virgo. you appear as someone intelligent, possibly judgmental and critical. in fact, you’re a perfectionist, and most of the time you appreciate it when someone takes care of themselves just as much as you do. you’re also particularly pessimistic, and this could be annoying for those around you. you’re very logical, even though you probably don't lack intuition thanks to all the water energy in your chart. you’re very pragmatic, and you may even be judgmental, but this energy is probably mitigated by your cancer and sagittarius dominance, which makes you more open-minded and sensitive. the ruler of the 1st house is in the 4th house: you come off as a very private, yet mature person. you may be quite secretive, or at least you only prefer to share your persona with those around you. you probably love your family, and you also want to build your own family in the future.

your 2nd house is in libra, with also your mars placed therr. you find beauty and aesthetic in material things; you most probably love clothes, art, music… anything that isn’t exactly a priority in life, but that allows you to express your personal taste, which is very refined. with this placement I’d suggest that you should pursue a career that allows you to express your creativity, as arts and beauty allow you not only to make money, but also to increase your security and confidence. you could also spend money in venusian things like clothes, make-up, decorations and anything that involves beauty and aesthetic. with mars placed in this house, I feel like you may be very fond of money. you could do something just to earn material things from it, like money or any other good that satisfies your wants. you may be quite materialistic, you enjoy the finer things in life, or at least you want to be financially stable. you like the idea of saving money, but ironically you may be too impulsive when it comes to finances and spend money in random things you may not need.

your 3rd house in scorpio. you probably love witty jokes and sarcasm. you’re extremely honest when you think and speak, and most of the times you have no problems expressing your opinions. you could possibly be very good with words and be good at convincing and manipulating others. usually this placement makes someone kind of mischievous when it comes to words, but I think that with all the jupiter influence in your chart, you’re able to control this in order not to hurt others. your mind is very deep, you’re probably not really into small talks. you may also love anything that is considered taboo, like astrology, horror, nudity, death… you’re also quite secretive, you’re seen as an enigma. you don’t want to share much about you. last but not least, you value honesty above all. you only speak the truth, and hence you also want it back. you may as well be into conspiracy theories, science and anything that can expose what’s behind the universe, the government etc.

your 4th house is in sagittarius, with also the moon and pluto placed in this house. you could come from a foreign place, or perhaps you moved houses a lot during your childhood. perhaps, you have someone in your family that is from a different culture or religion from yours, or perhaps they’re able to speak more than one language. your parents could have been very successful at school, they could actually be professors. you might’ve always been a smart kid, you could’ve grown up learning more languages and you were most likely good at school too. you also got to make lots of experiences during your childhood, you might have travelled a lot. your relationship with your family is most likely very good. it could be that there might have been a few misunderstandings between you and your parents, but nothing too serious. maybe, they could have been a bit distant, it could be that they had to travel a lot for work and hence you felt lonely; or maybe, it's the opposite, they were a bit too affectionate and overwhelming, possibly possessive too, and you may have been babied or spoiled a bit too much. yet, this didn't really affect your growth and mentality, so it's probably nothing important. in fact, you also have the moon placed in this house, which indicates that your family is your comfort-zone. you feel comfortable with them, you're allowed to express yourself the way you want without being judged or repressed.

your 5th house is in the sign of capricorn, with also your neptune placed there. capricorn usually brings a feeling of seriousness to the house it’s in. I don’t think it’s your case, though. in fact, neptune, is also placed in this house. you could be a bit more introverted, probably you’re not the type to frequent clubs, parties, etc. you’re more serious from that point of view. your hobbies could actually drain your energy for you; let’s suppose you’re into videogames. you could literally spend the whole day playing videogames, as you take your hobbies very seriously. you’re not the type to start a project and then leave it, and it could be helpful considering that your sagittarius moon gets bored very easily, you’re very resolute. also, you most likely have 'mature’ hobbies; you could be into politics, economy, history… you could be into slower types of music, for example, or perhaps you like reading about world issues. with your children you may be quite strict, as you see them as a responsibility. also, you may often be attracted or attract older or more mature partners. you’re most likely a very romantic and artistic person, you may be fond of music, dancing, singing, acting… anything creative that stimulates your senses. yet, you may be a bit picky when it comes to hobbies; you probably only like reading specific types of books, you only listen to a certain music style, and so on. you may also be into spirituality such as psychology, astrology, law of attraction, yoga, mediation, etc.

your 6th house is in aquarius, uranus is also sitting there. people with aquarius in their 6th house need to change their routine throughout your life. probably, when you were you younger they taught you things that aren’t healthy for your body and health. you may have to change your diet, your medicines… also, you may sometimes procrastinate in your day-to-day life. I don’t think you do it too often, but it may still happen due to your virgo and mars dominance in your chart, but for example you wouldn’t mind skipping a day of school or work to play videogames. this placement also indicates that you may often come across unpredictable events in your daily life. you may often see strange, unordinary things, or perhaps it’s your routine that is like that. you may lack consistency when it comes to diets and health, for example; you may start a diet and keep it for a month, then you get tired and drop it all of a sudden. you could also develop unexpected diseases. you may pursue a career that looks unexpected for you at first, something that you never thought you'd do. it will most likely be a creative, artistic job. it will be a very pleasant job, it won’t even feel like a duty to you as you’ll choose a job that you like and that you’re passionate about. regarding your health, throughout your life you may often come across sudden health problems, illnesses may come out of nowhere.

your 7th house is in pisces. with this pisces descendant, you attract people that are pretty much very intuitive and soft; they could have pisces placements, or at least they’ll be extremely artistic and emotional. yet, you may as well surround yourself with 'broken’ people. that is, people that aren’t exactly in the best state of their health, whether physically or mentally. neptune, the ruler of this house, is in the 5th house. you could meet them in a fun situation, like a party, a vacation, a night out… any situation where you’re supposed to be chilling and having fun, you may meet your future spouse there. also, in a relationship you probably hate feeling suffocated. while your pisces descendant may make you enjoy skinship, you may sometimes also need your space, you still need your freedom, especially since your moon sign is sagittarius. also, pisces makes you idealize your crushes/partners way too much, to the point that you create an image of someone in your head that turns out to be the opposite at the end. you ignore your partner’s flaws, as they seem perfect to you.

your 8th house is in aries, with also jupiter placed there. generally, people with aries in their 8th house are very confident when it comes to taboo topics; they have no problems showing their interest in them, especially with people they're intimate with. thanks to jupiter's presence in this house, you're not afraid of darker topics and embracing them. for example, you could have lots of sex drive. you constantly try to improve yourself by coming up with new projects, you love challenges. they help you growing up into the person you want to become. you may come across some hardships regarding yourself, your identity. but, when you face those fears and start loving yourself, you’ll naturally become more mature and 'transform’. last but not least, this placement can also indicate that you're going to have a peaceful death, you're going to die later in life.

your 9th house is in taurus, with also saturn sitting there. with this placement, I feel like you may use your intellect to gain financial security and material possessions. while this is a good thing, as it helps increasing your confidence, don’t forget that your intellect is more important than money or any other thing. don’t underestimate it. you’re totally capable of learning and understanding things by yourself, hence don’t wait for others for help. you should start dealing with your own experiences alone, without anybody else’s help. this placement can also be someone a little close-minded; in fact, you're probably very stubborn and firm about your beliefs. you hardly ever allow others to change your mind. saturn here could make it hard for you to step out of your comfort-zone, you may be shy and therefore you could often miss out on important opportunities in your life. luckily, you're going to get more assertive as time goes by, and you will feel free, you just need to grow more mature.

your 10th house is in gemini, with also your sun there. you may actually pursue more than one career throughout your life! you’re very flexible and skilled at multi-tasking, so you probably wouldn’t feel stressed about it. perhaps, you could alternate a creative profession with a more logical career, like working in an office for example. also, your suitable jobs should include communication and creativity at the same time; you could be a writer, for example. or perhaps, you could keep these two things in two separate jobs. what matters is that you use words in both of them, and hence you could even be a judge, a singer, a translator, etc. you may also have to interact with other people in your job, I don't see you working from home for example. you could even work as a teacher, or even professor since your jupiter is strongly placed in your chart. you may also be very popular on your work place, and you may even be in the public eye for your job.

your 11th house is in cancer, with also mercury placed there. this placement indicates that your friends, they’re your comfort-zone. you feel understood when you’re with them, they’re pretty much like a family to you. you can tell them anything, you put all of your trust in them. or at least, if you haven’t met anyone like this yet, you’ll surely meet a friend that is like a soulmate to you. they’ll also be very important for your growth. in addition, it could also be that you’re still friends with someone from your childhood or even high school days, and hence you could literally grow up together. you could also have some step-siblings. you have a very distinctive way of thinking and speaking. you don't like being like others, you don't follow trends. you're probably the trendsetter, and you may find confidence and pride in your ideas and opinions. some may even define you weird, but you have very strong beliefs that could actually be helpful for the world. you're quite 'ahead' of others from this point of view, you're able to find beauty in things without being influenced by others. for example, you may follow a fashion trend before it gets viral. you are able to come up with very innovative ways of solving problems, you're extremely creative. you may even be the type to invent your own words, or perhaps you love learning and reading new words, you have a wide vocabulary. you're also probably interested in science and any darker or logical topic, you want to use your words and theories to change something in the world. you want to leave an impact, maybe even help others through your mind. you have a very witty sense of humor, you most likely speak fluent sarcasm and you're also very astute.

lastly, your 12th house is in leo. this is kind of a tricky placement, as leo rules the self, the ego, and the 12th house rules fears. you could be afriad of being too confident, of feeling worth it, or even just by being in the spotlight. perhaps, you have stage fright. this fear of embracing your persona makes you very insecure, even though you probably don’t show it. also, since your 12th house is the house of dreams, you could often make dreams that involve yourself. you hardly ever dream of someone else, and if you they’re probably your lovers, possibly your friends. you may also make daydreams or sleeping dreams of creative, utopic scenarios. venus is also sitting there; you most likely have lots of dreams, that could even predict the future, and generally they're not too violent or turbulent. you’re hopelessly romantic, to the point that you almost look naive. you’re not simply looking for a partner or spouse, you’re looking for a soulmate; someone you can literally communicate with just using your eyes, someone that knows how to make you feel even messier on the inside. you like to nurture and feel nurtured in a relationship. your ideal lover would be sensitive and empathetic, yet still with a sort of rebel vibe to them.

❤️ love life, soulmates

in love, you attract pisces, sagittarius, aquarius and scorpio placements. your future spouse will most likely have some of their planets in scorpio or aquarius; they’ll be well-balanced, with a stable job and finances. yet, they won’t be too much of a workaholic, as they’re also most probably a chill individual who loves relax and vacation as well. they could also be foreign and very open-minded. yet, they could be quite impulsive and chilidish at times. your chart points out that this relationship will be kind of unordinary; you may meet them abroad, most likely at work, or even during a simple trip. they’ll also be very spiritual, perhaps religious, or even psychic. your children will have aquarius placements: they’ll be extremely open-minded and intelligent; they could be a bit rebellious, but in a very woke and revolutionary way. they'll be very creative and quite sensitive too. also, this placement indicates that you may get pregnant unexpectedly, so be careful to that.

👶🏻 family life

your mother was probably very outgoing, sociable and open-minded. she was probably very intelligent too, and she could have been a successful student. she was basically the perfect, nurturing mother. yet, she probably was too emotional, she could have even been quite possessive or moody. she probably has sagittarius, scorpio, gemini, leo and / or cancer placements in her chart, as well as 9th, 8th and 4th house placements. your father, on the other hand, was probably less strict than your mother. he had a complex personality, he most likely used to act different based on the situation he was in. but you most likely used to play a lot with him, you had fun together. he could have been very sociable and intelligent too. he may have gemini, sagittarius or virgo placements in his chart, as well as 3rd and 6th house placements, perhaps even 9th. if you have siblings, they have scorpio, libra or aries placements in their chart, as well as 1st / 7th / 8th house placements. you might have fought a lot when you were young, there were many control issues and your bond is very intense. yet, you're still very affectionate, and your bond will probably get better as time goes by.

📊 career

as I've already mentioned above, your future career will most likely involve communication of any kind; you could have to interact with other people, and hence you may work in a place that allows you to communicate with others and that can get quite crowded, like a shop for example. you'll most likely start from these small jobs, like working in a cafe for example. yet, your gemini midheaven indicates that you can handle way stronger careers; above all, communication and creativity are the most indicated fields for you to be successful. you would do amazing as a writer for example, or perhaps you could even become an amazing teacher / professor. yet, you may even choose to pursue a more complex career, like a career in the med field. you could become a nurse for example, as it allows you to both help and communicate with other people. you will start from simple things, but as time goes by, you'll be able to become more independent, maybe even a leader. you probably won't have to depend too much on other people.

👚 fashion sense, style analysis

keyword for your wardrobe: black. every leo venus loves black, it's probably my favorite love story. after all, it's such a versatile color! it can be both badass and classy, how can I blame you. you may also have a thing for anything that looks luxury and high quality; you probably enjoy wearing designer brands, especially in your belts and bags. you may also like wearing fitted clothes, even just simple skinny jeans or tight tops. aside from black, you could as well use white and bold colours like gold, hot pink etc. also, you may as well be into pastel colors, and you could like following fashion trends.

👁 past life, life purpose

in your past lifetime, you used to put your spirituality aside for a while to focus on finding out your identity here on the earth. you learned how to be responsible, healthy and stable on the earth. you know your values, and they’re already very grounded, you’re very mature from this point of view. in this lifetime, you now need to get more in touch with your spirituality. you need to get close to your higher self, and you may actually be quite skilled at it; probably you may interpret your dreams, you could be interested in religion, what’s beyond the world, and you’re most likely also interested in astrology and other occult matters. you’ll finally be able to reach happiness and fulfill your soul when you start having awareness of your soul’s purpose. since you’ve booked a reading, I’m sure you’re already on the right path, so keep going this way.

🤔 major transits analysis / june 18th

a few unpredictable, possibly painful events may occur in this period of time, as transit saturn is in your 5th house conjunct your natal uranus. there could be an unexpected loss of money for example, a sudden breakup or argument or even death. something will happen that will surely change your view of things and will help you have a major transformation, in order to leave toxicity behind.

🧿 manifest what you want, secret skills

the best way for you to manifest is idealizing and acting at the same time. you have both energies combined in your chart, which is great actually! I’d suggest you to first picture what you want in your life, and then do something concrete to manifest it. for example, let’s suppose you want this gucci bag; first, think about it deeply. then, you could try going into a gucci shop and just walk around, maybe even touch that bag. you’ll get results if you believe it! it’s also great to write and read/listen your own positive affirmations, such as 'I love my gucci bag’, 'the gucci bag my mom gave me is amazing’ and so on.

and this is it! thank you again for booking a reading, hope it resonated with you :)

[wordsnstuff]

Guide To Writing Found Family

This is also available on wordsnstuffblog.com!

– Found family is a very popular trope that I don’t often see explored in technical writing resources, and as a person who is currently in the middle of developing one for my own series, I decided to make a resource for those who were also confused when approaching this character dynamic. If you have anything to add to the topic, feel free to comment down below for the other writers out there. Hopefully this is helpful to those who need a place to start. Happy writing!

Patreon || Ko-Fi || Masterlists || Work In Progress || Studyblr || Studygram

Avoiding Romantic Subtext

This is one of the hardest obstacles to sidestep when writing an unusual dynamic, and for certain genres it can be ten times worse. For example, in fiction written specifically for young adults, there’s a baseline expectation for a hefty amount of romantic tension, and readers will often insert it no matter what the text and subtext suggests. In order to prevent this automatic insertion of romance in the reader’s interpretation, it’s wise to establish a clear and reasonable explanation for why the relationships are platonic and will never develop into something more. 

It’s not a good idea to go for the “person a nor person b has ever considered this relationship blossoming romantically” because that’s often the basis for romantic stories, and will leave that wiggle room for the reader to run with. Show in the way they interact and perhaps in the narration/first person that each party has thought of that scenario and ultimately come to the conclusion that there’s just no romantic potential.

Showing Familial Relationships

Families rely on each other and in diverse ways. The way these individuals interact and build a familial bond is determined (often) by the way in which they form a dependence on the other, and this is more often than not in found family stories, a healthy dependence. It shows the other person’s reliability, care, and compassion, and the way this develops is different for family than it is for friends. 

Certain family members also have specific types of humor when it comes to each other. A father and a daughter will have a different sense of humor or understanding with each other than maybe the daughter and her brother do, and this all adds to form a vivid dynamic in your reader’s head that will alter the way they perceive relationships. Found family will be exactly the same, but they’ll have different backstories and different reasons why that sense of humor or understanding has developed that way.

Friendship vs. Family

Found family is unique in the way that readers can very easily perceive a relationship as close friendship rather than a familial one. However, friendship lacks a certain vulnerability and dependence that found family can use to its advantage, because family sees each other at their highs and lows and conflict usually carries different implications. 

Family also implies a different attitude and motivation behind the relationship. Conflicts between family members are less severe in the long-run because there’s a ground-level understanding that no matter what happens, arguments will end in forgiveness and closure, whereas that is not necessarily guaranteed with friendships or romances. The motivation, also, is different in the sense that found family is more often meant to last a lifetime, and therefore is less fragile and opens the door for more open communication and vulnerability.

Converting Tension to Intimacy

When you’re tasked with turning a tense, unfriendly relationship into a close and familial one, it’s daunting to even begin thinking about how to go about it.  First, it’s important to understand the function of this stage of their relationship as a starting point for growth in both of the characters rather than merely a device to create drama for the reader to munch on. Intimacy of any kind develops out of mutual growth, vulnerability, and understanding, and in order to convey these things to the reader, you need to take your time letting this stage simmer. If you extinguish the tension too fast, it will read as shallow and futile, and it will throw a wrench in the natural pacing.

Now, the transition from tension to intimacy is a several step process and does not happen in one chapter. Mindsets, perceptions, and attitudes change over time as both the reader and the characters learn more information and experience more genuine interaction. The relationship, as I mentioned earlier, will change as the characters see each other in increasingly vulnerable situations and in periods of growth, and as they witness this their understanding of the other and ultimate acceptance will change the way they treat each other and their mutual perceptions of one another’s place in their lives. This usually happens in the subtextual area of the story, excluding events that are formulated specifically to depict this evolution.

Different Sizes of Families

The size of the invented family very much impacts the way that the group relationship develops. For example, two or three people who develop a family-like connection will be much more intimate and dependent than a created family that includes ten. Larger groups imply more diverse, but also more shallow representations of what relationships between family members can be, but they often leave more room for relatability and comedy. Smaller families work well for more serious struggles, and make more sense with characters that deal with serious issues that a real person wouldn’t be comfortable giving all the details about to ten other people. 

There’s definitely a spectrum and it fluctuates wildly for different types of stories, genres, character archetypes, and themes. Deciding how large to make this found family really depends on the fine details and requires some time and thought.

Common Struggles

~ Bringing people together when there’s an age gap… Age gaps can serve really well in the area of establishing a familial relationship without suggesting romance because most readers will assume that a close relationship between a younger woman and an older (say, 65 year old) man is more of a father-daughter relationship than a romantic one. The way you an bring together two people with an age gap and establishing a familial relationship is by playing on the aspect of guidance and support that a parent or typically older figure would provide to a younger, more naive person. This can come off trope-y but, like any other aspect of a story, putting an original twist on it can make it more original and interesting to the reader. 

~ Starting with tension… This is very common in the case of a sibling-type relationship or a guardianship situation. Usually, there’s some resistance from the party that does not hold the upper hand, and this can create tension in both of them. I suggest that if you’re going to develop a tense relationship into a close one that resembles family, then avoid tropes. There are so many ways that you can twist these ideas and situations based on your world and characters’ traits, so don’t go straight for the “I hate you because you’re trying to control me even though you’re not my real dad” thing.

Other Resources

Useful Writing Resources

Useful Writing Resources II

Resources For Describing Characters

Resources For Describing Emotions

Resources For Creating Characters

Resources For World Building

Resources For Plot Development

Resources For Writing Science Fiction

Resources For Writing Dystopian/Apocalypse

Resources For Fantasy & Mythology Writers

Giving Characters Bad Traits

Writing Children

Having Trouble Connecting To Your Characters?

On Making Scenes/Characters Unpredictable

Keeping Characters From Sounding Identical

Writing About Uncomfortable Topics

How To Foreshadow

Commentary On Social Issues In Writing

Tackling Subplots

How To Make A Scene More Heartfelt

How To Develop A Distinct Voice In Your Writing

How To Perfect The Tone In A Piece Of Writing

A Guide To Tension & Suspense In Your Writing

Writing Arguments Between Characters

Ways To Fit Character Development Into your Story

Tips On Writing Intense Scenes

Showing vs. Telling

Support Wordsnstuff!

FIND MORE ON WORDSNSTUFFBLOG.COM

If you enjoy my blog and wish for it to continue being updated frequently and for me to continue putting my energy toward answering your questions, please consider Buying Me A Coffee, or pledging your support on Patreon.

Request Resources, Tips, Playlists, or Prompt Lists

Instagram // Twitter //Facebook //#wordsnstuff

FAQ //monthly writing challenges // Masterlist

MY CURRENT WORK IN PROGRESS (Check it out, it’s pretty cool. At least I think it is.)

Studyblr || Studygram

Check out my YouTube Channel!

[imaginebeatles]

Hello, I'm a homo-romantic ace whose been having a lot of weird conversations lately about who belongs in the LGBT umbrella. I think anyone who is ace has the space if they want it because it is a little understood sexual orientation that experiences a lot of corrective reactions. But lately people have been arguing to me that only aces with non-hetero rom orientations and/or folk who are non cisgender have access to the space. I was wondering the following things:

2/2 what’s your take on asexuality belonging to the LGBT term, the LGBT community and the LGBT complex (cuz I think it’s gotten more complex as a functioning being)? Does asexuality belong in a tertiary space like BDSM which crosses over with queer (and shares similarities) but is not fully within it? Thanks for sharing about your thesis, every time it pops up on my dash I feel very excited. It’s been awhile since I engaged in queer theory and I am loving your work! No pressure to answer tho!

Okay, so…. this is a very contentious topic, but I have a lot of thoughts on this, especially since I’ve started doing research for my thesis. I’ve read some articles on asexuality and the queer community so… here we go. I’ve put it under the cut, so people can easily scroll past it if they’re not interested. 

(I would also like to first say that I will be use the word “queer” here. I know some people are uncomfortable with that because its past use as a slur, however, because it is an actual academic term that is used by everyone writing about these issues, and especially within queer theory, I will be using that word too. I use the word to talk about all non-normative identities/practices related to gender and sexuality, which includes the LGBTQ+ community, but is more extensive than that, including any letters not part of that acronym. Queer is also a (political and academic) practice, not just an identity. This already possibly shows where my answer to your question is going…) 

Firstly, I want to say that I understand why some people within the LGBTQ+ community might be uncomfortable about letting asexual people into that community. There is a difficult relationship between asexuality and queer identities. Some people in the field of asexuality studies have begun to write on this (I’ll list them down one or two down below). Within queer politics, historically but also now, there is a heavy focus on sex. Because queer people have struggled against oppression based on their sexual habits, not having sex is generally viewed as conservative or as a form of assimilation. For wlw this is further true because for a long time healthy sexual behaviour (aka having sex at all) was seen as impossible between two women, because both women would be sexually passive. Not having sex is not radical. This is why hetero-romantic aces are often dismissed as being “straight anyway”. Non-normative sexual practices (like cruising) are an important part of the queer community (academic work within queer studies in especially the 1990s and 2000s shows this too, wherein theoretical and political potential is mined from non-normative sex acts, including bare-backing because of its relation to the HIV crisis in the 80s).

It therefore makes sense that queer people (especially gay men and women, but also others) are uncomfortable with asexuality’s focus on not having sex, and as such asexuality is often seen as being “sex negative” instead of “sex positive” and thus bad. At least, politically. 

I, however, and other academics, do think asexuality is queer, if you define queer as being non-normative in relation to hetero-normativity). Asexuality is seen as non-normative in our current hyper-sexual society and sex is seen as a vital part of heterosexuality too (you have to reproduce and women are meant to be sexually available to men at all times). Asexual people are discriminated against because they refuse sex, which society sees as natural. While the struggles of asexual people are different from those of gay people, bi and trans people (and other identities) also have their own struggles against which they fight. This does not diminish their struggles. 

Acephobia is based on ableist ideas: if you don’t want sex, there must be something wrong with you either mentally or physically, because sex is naturally and everyone should want it and have it (often). Asexuality is often dismissed and not seen as “real”. There must be something that inhibits you from having sex, whether that is physiological, hormonal, or having to do with trauma, or maybe just because you are not “hot enough to get a boyfriend”, which reminds me of how for a long time lesbians were seen as being men-hating ugly women (and feminists). This view leads to asexuality being pathologized (as homosexuality used to be). There have been numerous ways in which low sexual desire or a lack of sexual fantasies has been sees as a disorder in the psychoanalytic tradition. Attempts to “fix” asexual people are made through things like therapy or hormone treatment (or stuff like viagra or other such things), but also through corrective rape, either in a medical contexts under the idea that sexuality needs to be “awakened” within the patient, or in the private sphere at the end of a partner or friend. Research has also shown that people see asexual people as less human, more machine-like. They admit feeling uncomfortable with asexual people, and that they may discriminate against them, such as refusing them rent. 

Asexual people have their own political issues to work through, just as any other identity within the LGBTQ+ community. However, each of these issues and more are related to the fight against hetero-normativity. Another example is that asexual people, especially those who are also aromantic, can help critique the way society privileges heterosexual romantic couplehood, especially married heterosexual couples. Asexual and aromantic people often privilege non-romantic and non-sexual relationship, such as friendships or family, allowing us to re-evaluate these other relationships and open up new forms of queer relating, which will also be appealing to other queer people, who often form their own social group or families and whose relationship and friendships are often in some way “queer”. 

On top of that, it is important to realise that there is a lot of overlap between asexual people and other queer identities. However, queer asexual people constantly remark on how they do not feel safe or represented by the queer or LGBTQ+ community, even those who “welcome” queer aces, but not hetero-romantic aces. The queer and LGBTQ+ community are heavily sexualized spaced, which makes aces feel unwelcome, but also leaves many non-asexual queer people to complain about the lack of safe spaces for queer people that aren’t about clubbing, such as the lack of queer cafes or library. The queer community (and LGBTQ+ community) is itself deeply entrenched in compulsory sexuality, just like hetero-normative society, making aces feel like they don’t belong to either community. 

If an asexual person if gay, or bi, or non-binary, or trans, or queer, or whatever, it is the LGBTQ+ and queer communities that should provide them a safe space and fight for them. Their asexuality informs their experience as homo-romantic or trans or anything else, and cannot be separated from that part of their identity. These are not separate issues. If we want to protect trans kids or gay kids or any other member of the queer/LGBTQ+ community, these communities need to be inclusive of asexuality and provide spaces where these kids are safe and can talk freely about their experiences and the challenges they face. These will undoubtedly also be informed by their asexual identity. 

We are stronger politically when we fight together. We fight the same cause. Asexual people do not ask other LGBTQ+ or queer people to not be sexual. They only ask that they are included and that their own issues are being taken seriously. 

On top of that, asexuality intersects with a lot of other queer issues. For trans folks, for example, the focus on sex in society and romantic relationships may leave them uncomfortable because of their body dysphoria and may thus run into similar issues as sex-repulsed aces. Stone butch women may find common ground with asexuality too, because of the focus on penetrative sex in society. The hypersexualisation of gay men may find that they experience similar issues as asexual people who feel they are being (hyper)sexualised despite not being sexual. There is a lot of overlap, and these issues need to be addressed. We can help each other and offer new perspectives that will help us fight for the same rights. 

On top of that, on a more abstract level, can also be valuable for queer politics in the way that it undermines our current understanding of sexual identity. The way we now think about sexuality was constructed by straight people with the aim of pathologizing and thus actively discriminate against and eliminate perverted sexuality. This started with homosexuality with Freud, and quickly began to expand. If you want to know more about this, Foucault’s History of Sexuality is a good place to start. This allowed for sexual object choice to be used to group specific people together and make them into a specific type or “species”, as Foucault calls it. Our conception of sexuality, then, was constructed to uphold heterosexuality as the norm, making heterosexuality (that is the opposite sex as the sexual object choice) out to be the natural and normal and healthy form of sexuality. 

Asexuality undermines this construction. Asexuality not only shows that there are different forms of attraction, which do not need to be connected to each other in a one-on-one relation, but also shows that sexual attraction is not the only or even the most important basis for attraction. Asexuality is not explainable in our current system and forces people to consider their sexual preferences. What do I like in sex? What kind of sex? What kind of sensuality? And with whom? If I like having sex with men, but only being sensual with women, what does that mean? Asexuality asks us what we prefer, putting the focus on preference  rather than something biological or innate that makes us feel desire towards one gender and not the other. 

This is not to say that asexuality makes sexual identity into an arbitrary choice. Rather, it shows that you cannot divide people into identity categories based on sexual object choice shows that attempting to do so is just as silly as doing so based on if you like tea or coffee. Or ketchup or mustard. On top of that, it allows for sexuality to be seen as fluid, not that it changes, but that it is not fixed. Maybe you like ketchup for a long time, and then no anymore. Or maybe you are briefly in the mood only for this specific type of mustard but not the others. Focusing on preference allows us to undermine the whole construct on which hetero-normativity is predicated. Making identities such as heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual or pansexual almost meaningless or nonsensical. If we want to do away with hetero-normativity completely, this is a crucial step to take. It allows us to focus on sexuality as a social construct, rather than something that must be biologically explained. 

TL;DR: I understand why some LGBTQ+ people are uncomfortable with the idea of bringing asexual into the community. However, I think ultimately we are fightening the same cause despite our own specific issues that we face. We have a similar stake in queer politics and queer academia. Asexuality can offer the queer or LGBTQ+ community a lot, and being inclusive to asexuality is crucial if we want to protect queer kids. As such there is a lot that both communities can offer each other. 

This goes for both queer aces and hetero-romantic aces. Hetero-romantic aces also benefit and often have a stake in dismantling hetero-normativity because they are asexual. Hetero-romantic aces also face discrimination under hetero-normativity. Because of this, asexuality at large ought to be included. Excluding hetero-romantic aces from the queer community or LGBTQ+ community shows a misunderstanding of asexuality and its political issues and seems not so much inclusive of asexual issues, but rather inclusive of those issues that relate ONLY to the other part of their identity. For queer aces, however, these two are not separate issues. If you want to be inclusive to queer aces, you have to be inclusive towards asexuality in general. 

Asexuality, then, should be fully within the queer community, not be treated as a separate but overlapping thing like BDSM. Asexuality, when taken seriously, will affect all spaces of the queer community for the better, while still allowing for sex-positive politics. 

Reading suggestions: 

Michel Foucault, History of Sexuality.

Megan Milks, “Stunted Growth: Asexual Politics and the Rhetoric of Sexual Liberation.” In Asexualities: Feminist and Queer Perspectives, edited by Karli June Cerankowski and Megan Milks. 

Erica Chu, “Radical Identity Politics: Asexuality and Contemporary Articulations of Identity.” In Asexualities: Feminist and Queer Perspectives, edited by Karli June Cerankowski and Megan Milks. 

[secret-diary-of-an-fa]

Secret-Diary Attempts to Arbitrate Between Trans-Activism and Gender-Critical Radical Feminism. Yeah. This’ll End Well.

One of the most infuriating things about being a Person On The Internet is being forced by circumstance to form opinions on things you really, really don’t care about. It works like this: you see a lot of other people having opinions about something, and you try really, really hard not to form opinions of your own, because the issue they’re arguing over has nothing to do with you and is probably a storm in a teacup anyway. Unfortunately, you can’t help but mentally respond to the opinions everyone else is having, because they’re having them very loudly and in public spaces that you use to write and communicate. Before you know it, you’ve formed a carefully-considered view on something that you just wanted to ignore, and the only way to lance the boil is to write a blog entry about it. A blog entry that will probably invite five thousand tons of hatemail from both sides of the debate because it makes an effort to be moderate and to recognise the valid points of both sides, which people fucking hate for some reason. And so, with all that in mind, I’m about to try and put down my thoughts on Transactivism and Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminism- two things that don’t involve me but which I’ve heard so much about that an opinion has glommed itself together in my mind-tank.

First of all, I’m socially liberal, in the classic sense of that term. Meaning that I think people should more or less be allowed to do and think what they like, so long as it doesn’t hurt other people. As such, I don’t generally have a problem with trans people. I don’t really care how any given person identifies provided they don’t expect me to use the word ‘genderfluid’ with a straight face (y’know, because ‘Gender Fluid’ sounds like a hastily-conceived euphemism for vaginal discharge).

Unfortunately, my general air of acceptance and live-and-let-live laissez-faire doesn’t extend to the nuttier fringes of trans-actvisism, because those nutty fringes really seem to hate radical feminists and- frankly, they just don’t deserve it. Not too long ago, in the yester-times, my sister wrote a short blog about how some parents and schools are encouraging young children to identify as trans, even though it’s a terrible idea because young children are prone to magical and transformative thinking and don’t have brains that are fully developed enough to think about the nuances of gender identity. My sister thought she wanted to be a boy until she grew up and realised she wasn’t trrans, she was just a butch lesbian. I didn’t even want to be human, and spent quite a lot of my childhood ‘identifying’ as an alien from a distant planet. Simply put, you risk doing more harm than good by assuming that any act of transformative thinking by a child is a sign of latent transgenderism, when its much more likely to be a child’s naturally experimentation with the concept of identity. Regardless of whether you agree with that chain of reasoning or not, you can presumably concur that it’s cogent, reasonable and comes from a place of wanting the best for the next generation, not from a place of hate. For daring to make this argument in a public forum, however, my sister received reams of hatemail from self-styled trans-activists using ‘TERF’ as an insult... included one guy who said that he hoped she got stabbed in the vagina. This seems to be part of a wider pattern of violent reactions of so-called TERFs. Did you know you can get T-shirts with fake ‘TERF blood’ on them, for example? To put it another way, the trans-activist community tends to overreact to mild criticism quite a lot. I’m naturally suspicious of this large, powerful group that explodes violently when confronted with even the lightest criticism.

Which brings me to TERFs. Are there horrible, transphobic TERFs who only want to use their feminism as an excuse to attack trans peeps? Yes. Do they represent the main bulk of gender-critical radical feminism? No. As far as I can tell, most TERFs are fairly normal people have no interest in invalidating or erasing trans identities. They just want ideological and liminal spaces for women who were born women and for some recognition of the continued existence of sex-based oppression (as separate from gender identification-based oppression). I’m not an expert or even any type of feminist, but that doesn’t seem unreasonable to me. Being a trans woman is a perfectly valid identity but it presumably entails a different set of experiences and identity issues to those confronted by women who were born as biological women. As such, its appropriate to have spaces that recognise that difference. Not everyone needs to be allowed access to every single cultural space. It’s okay to have different sections within the general discourse for different people with different issues.

None of this is to say that “TERFS = Good, Trans = bad”.That’s obviously not the case. Both groups have a mix of good people and irredeemable cunts. The problem is that the current, dominant cultural narrative ignores the sinister, mean spirited bastards in the trans-activist movement (and, in fact, gives them a free pas), while focusing exclusively on the worst excesses of gender-critical radical feminism. Instead of saying “here are two groups of people with good and bad points whose ideologies need to be discussed fairly and openly to find common ground”, the narrative says “all Trans people are good and noble and decent and all TERFs are saturday-morning cartoon villains with twirly mustaches”. And that’s an idiotic oversimplification. I don’t know whose side I’m on, in the final analysis, but I do know that no good can come out of a one-sided narrative that gives the worst people in one group a free pass while ignoring the more reasoned and thoughtful people in the other. I’m not completely for or against either group, but I am in favour of reasoned-discussion-without-contrived-argument and I am against excessively simplified cultural narratives.

ADDENDUM: Please don’t try to message me about this, or start a discussion in the reblogs. I’m annoyed that I even had to think about it this much. Also, don’t get your knickers in a twist over the ‘Gender Fluid’ joke- I’m not trying to invalidate your identity, it’s just a funny word.

[81scorp]

More thoughts on Tangled

I thought that all of my thoughts on Tangled might be a little much to read if put into one editorial, so I decided to divide it into two. Here`s the second half. You broke my SPOILERS ! Small constructive criticism

On the fence: Rapunzel hiding the satchel Where did Rapunzel hide the satchel? On her body I mean, before the scene where she gives it to Eugene in the boat. How about: She could have left the tower with her own, selfmade handbag to carry small stuff, like provision. When Gothel gives her the satchel she could take the crown out of it and hide it in her handbag and give it to Eugene later. "But if you`re gonna question the realism why don`t you also question why her hair doesn`t get dirty from being dragged on the ground or get stuck more often?" you might say.

Because A: Tangled seems to operate more on a fairytale logic than a Looney tunes logic where characters can pull things out of thin air whenever it`s convenient and the satchel was too important to the plot to be hidden in such a way.

B: I am very selective in my pedantic nitpicking. However: Rapunzel and Eugene`s sleeping place wasn`t that far from the castle. It`s possible that Rapunzel had time to run and get the satchel in the time it took Eugene to go and buy the lanterns. She could then have hid it behind her back until she knew what boat they were gonna use and then hide it on the boat. (Kinda how (I assume) Eugene hid the lanterns.) Besides, even if the satchel technically was too important to the plot to be hidden in such a looney tune kinda way it`s still technically a small thing in the plot that I didn`t really thought about until I looked a little closer and put a little extra thought into it. At the end of the day, I`m willing to let this slide. On the fence: Eugene getting hanged for stealing a crown People think that the punishment doesn`t fit the crime, that the hanging was just a way to raise the stakes and make it more dramatic. How about: Instead of being escorted to the gallows, he was being escorted to a boat that would take him to a prison-island where he would be locked up for who knows how many years. However: I don`t mind the dramatic punishment. It may have been disproportionate to the crime, but I like the raised stakes and it worked for the story. The Queen recognizing Rapunzel The last time she saw Rapunzel she was a blond baby, and now this grown up brunette shows up and she still recognizes her? Yes, if you`ve seen the scene you remember that they looked alike and that the Queen looked at her for a few seconds to find similarities. But how does she know she`s not some lookalike impostor? It would have been better if there was one more little thing that could help confirm Rapunzel`s identity. How about: Rapunzel was born with a flower-shaped birthmark behind one of her shoulders and the only ones who knew about it was the King, the Queen and Mother Gothel. And when they`re reunited the Queen checks her shoulder to be absolutely sure. But I guess most of us are willing to overlook this little detail because of the fairytale tone of the movie and because we know what Rapunzel`s been through. After all her hardships and struggles we want her to have her happy ending damnit! 2D animation and 3D animation This isn`t the first time Disney has done a fairytale musical or a computer animated movie but it is the first time they have combined the two. I like that they try something new, sure I would have liked if it was 2D, but I have no problem with the 3D. I just hope that there is still room in the future for some more handrawn Disney movies and that they don`t disappear completely. I wouldn`t mind seeing some more movies made with the Meander animation, like in Paperman. At least Disney`s last handdrawn movie wasn`t Home on the range. Tangled ever after Schopenhauer once said that a happy ending is an illusion created by the curtain closing at the right moment. What he meant is, and let`s be honest, most stories are about (Or at least involve) suffering and struggling. After the hero and heroine have suffered enough they are finally reunited in each other`s arms, the curtain closes and it`s a happy ending. Had it not ended there, the two lovers would once again have been separated and forced to struggle and suffer until they found each other again. If Tangled got a sequel Rapunzel and Eugene would once again have to struggle and suffer and it would weaken the big happy ending in the first movie. However, Hollywood does this all the time. Star wars: A New Hope ended happily and in the sequel Luke and his friends are back to hiding from and fighting against the Empire. Another important part of the movie and the fairytale it was based on (and the biggest reason why the filmmakers decided to not make a sequel) was Rapunzel`s insanely long hair which was cut in the movie`s climax. Without the most important thing it had in common with the fairytale it was based on, a sequel to Tangled would just seem forced. But if Disney were to make a sequel, what more could they actually tell the audience? Do we really want them to have a tragic turn of events just to make an interesting sequel? Was there a story left to tell and if so, what would it be about? Rapunzel and Eugene didn`t get married in the end of the first movie but a wedding was mentioned. In the end we got a short fim called Tangled ever after. I like it. The cartoony slapstick reminds me of the classic Tom and Jerry cartoons and I like that they continued the story with a short film. Not everything has to be big and feature length. Sometimes some things work best in a small scale. In the short film Eugene and Rapunzel take a back seat to Pascal and Maximus, which makes sense since their story was already told and pretty much came full circle in Tangled. And they still can`t get Eugene`s nose right! Tangled the series Just found out that they`re making an animated tv series that takes place between the first movie and the short film. It kinda, sorta weakens what I wrote about making sequels earlier since it kinda, sorta works as a sequel. How do I feel about a tv series? Cautious optimism. It could be good. I shouldn`t have high expectations but I hope that they at least give names to the unnamed Thugs from the Snugly Duckling. I mean seriously, you get recognizable actors like Brad Garrett and Jeffrey Tambor and you don`t even give their characters names? Tangled and Frozen If you haven`t seen Frozen or read my previous editorials

Do you want to read some SPOILERS? Ah yes, Tangled and Frozen. By the time I`m writing this they are, so far, Disney`s only 3D animated fairytale based musicals. That`s probably why people compare them to each other.

I like Tangled more than Frozen, that does not make Tangled objectively better than Frozen, nor does it make Frozen objectively worse or even bad. You can like one thing without hating the other. But why do I like Tangled more? I think one of the reasons (the reasons I can explain at least) is expectations.

First time I saw Tangled it surprised me, not just with the songs but also with three great scenes in a row: the Kingdom Dance scene, the wordless scene with the King and Queen (It hit me right in the feels!) and the big lantern scene. Suddenly this silly adventure comedy had become very heartwarming and a little bit more mature. Now you may say: "But it`s Disney, heartwarming is kinda their thing." Yes, but for a while they toned that down to focus more on silly comedies. Frozen is very hyped and it has led to it getting a lot of hate, something I think is sad because it`s not a bad movie. It is the hype that is the problem. Tangled was (in my experience at least) not as hyped as Frozen. (Probably because Disney wanted to keep the part about it being a musical a secret.) Because of that some of the best scenes were not shown in trailers and teasers, at least not much, to my knowledge, making it more pleasant to see them for the first time in the cinema. When Disney learned from Tangled that people like 3D animated musicals they made sure to play the Crap out of "Let it go". I Usually try to avoid hype. But then I saw a video where movie critic Kyle Kallgren mentioned Frozen in a list of movies that he recommended. He said: "Never before have I seen a Disney film with so many subversions". That word: "Subversions" (A word that I at that time thought meant the same as "toned down" or "avoid".), and the fact that Kyle usually watches highbrow movies, made me think that it was gonna be so much more different from the ordinary Disney films than it actually was. Plus, he also spoiled that it was sisterly love that saved the day. (But he didn`t go into details how it happened and fortunately he didn`t reveal the twist with Hans, all he said was "false prince". I assumed that Hans was a good guy (but not her true love) pretending to be a prince.) So curse you Mr Kallgren! Curse you for unintentionally raising my expectations about this movie only to find out that, while not the movie I thought it would be, it was still good and technically lived up to your description! May you be forced to watch godawful movies that... uh... uhm... Nevermind. But, like I said, his description was technically accurate.To it`s credit, Frozen has some new twists that we haven`t seen before, or at least often, in Disney movies. Where Tangled stayed more true to the Disney formula, Frozen gave us some new things. Like a clever villain who fools not just the heroines but the audience as well, platonic sibling love saves the day, not romantic love and we get a Disney queen (who plays an important part in the plot) who`s not evil. Another factor that makes me feel the way I felt about Frozen is (and this is very subjective) feels. Like I said before, I went into the cinema to see Tangled with low expectations and was surprised. The wordless scene with the King and the Queen before the release of the lanterns poked me right in the feels. Next Disney movie was Wreck it Ralph and much like Tangled I didn`t have high expectations about it. I saw it because a movie with a scene where several famous videogame badguys (like M. Bison and Bowser) meet in a support group seemed too hilarious to miss. I expected it to be funny and I was right, but then there were some good scenes with Ralph and Vanellope that hit me right in the feels. I thought it was just gonna be a silly comedy about videogame characters! Well played Disney, well played. This was also the first time I experienced Disney`s strategy of lowering our expectations and intentionally misleading us (Disney you magnificent bastards!). With two Disney movies in a row giving me the feels I think it`s understandable that I would expect their next movie (that was well recieved by critics) to do the same. Unlike Tangled and Wreck it Ralph my expectations with Frozen were not low, but relatively high-ish, like they usually are for most animated Disney movies. Frozen met my expectations much more than it exceeded them and it did not give me as strong feels as Tangled and Wreck it Ralph did. I didn`t feel that different from what I usually feel when I watch a good animated Disney movie. With Frozen I was waiting for that little extra thing that it technically never promised to give me. But you can`t really judge a movie`s quality (or likeability) based on how much feels it gives you, because feels are not necessary and there are many other things that can work to a movie`s advantage. However, there are some cases where some Disney movies have aged well for me and made me feel a little more when I´ve rewatched them after a few years. When I watched Beauty and the Beast as a little kid I liked it, but mostly for the humour. When I watched it again in my thirties a few years ago I remember seeing the dancing scene between Belle and Beast in a new light. Beast was being nervous and gulped while Belle was calm and gently took his hand and put it around her waist. I realized that this was probably the most intimate experience he had ever had with anyone, not so much physically but emotionally. This was not just a dance, this was a moment where a man was coming out of his shell and learning to trust someone else. If I`m not mistaken there are a few seconds where he looks where he puts his his feet but then gets more confident and realizes: "Hey, I`m getting good at this! I don`t need to look where I put my feet, it`s coming to me naturally!" In a way, this is a scene where Beast transforms on the inside. I love the line sung by Mrs Potts: "Both a little scared, neither one prepared", it sums up Belle and Beasts relationship perfectly. It`s a tale as old as time because it`s a tale worth retelling. My first-time experience with Brave was similar to my first-time experience with Frozen. I expected it to be different because it was Pixar. After watching it I felt: "It wasn`t bad, but it felt very conventional for a Pixar movie". It was on TV a couple of weeks ago, I gave it a watch and it had changed for me. The emotional moments had more of an impact on me this time and it gave me some feels. And don`t get me started on Dumbo. Who knows, maybe if I watch Frozen a second time some day in the future, now knowing better, I might see something in it that I didn`t see before and maybe it`ll give me the feels. Or maybe not. Like I said, a movie doesn`t have to give you the feels to be liked, and Frozen has other things that works to it`s advantage. Finally saw the Frozen fever short by the way. It`s as I expected: a cute, small project one would do between bigger projects. Cute songs, good animation and some funny moments. It does what it can with the short runtime it has. Yes, Frozen has flaws, but so does Tangled, and in both cases (for me at least) most of them are small and overlookable.

Tangled`s strength is it`s simplicity and humour. It also had the luxury of being the first 3D animated fairytale based musical. Frozen, not having the same luxury, has it`s strength in more memorable songs and challenging some of the tropes in the Disney formula. So, who wants a piece of cake?

[loudlytransparenttrash]

Why are you against feminism? From what I can see of your blog you are just as judgmental and rude as you accuse feminists to be. I don't know much about your fundamental beliefs but at least feminism is built on the basic idea of equality and justice. I think you might feel like feminism is obnoxious? Or maybe that feminists attack people to much? But my issue with that is that it seems like you are attacking feminists with just as much fervor and less of a moral basis.

I’m going to go easy as you’ve probably only just discovered feminism and you admit in your other messages that you have only read a few of my posts. But why didn’t you read more before asking why I’m against it? 

If you did bother reading any of my posts, you’d understand my critique goes a lot further than “feminists are rude.” I can tell you are used to debating people who really don’t know what they’re talking about, so all you have to do is throw around the whole “supporting feminism is the moral thing to do and if you don’t then you are immoral” tactic and you’ve won. 

In your second message, you affirm this by saying, “Feminism is about equality between men and women, and if you claim to be a moral person, all of those are objectively good things.“ You did the same in this message as well, saying I attack feminism with little moral basis. Well, you asked why I’m against feminism and you’ve just provided a perfect example. 

It’s these sly, sneaky manipulations which feminists have successfully used to shame and silence opposition for years. If you don’t agree with feminism, you hate women, equality and morality. If you don’t agree with Black Lives Matter, you hate black people. If you don’t agree with illegal immigration, you hate all immigrants. It’s all the same and it it only ever comes from one side. So for someone who believes feminism is the epitome of morality, what exactly is feminism doing that justifies this belief that supporting feminism makes you a moral person? 

You repeat over and over that feminism is about equality for men and women which I’m sure you often whip out the cute dictionary definition to prove it. Though you have to realize the gig is up, that used to be a convincing way to pull the wool over eyes, “how could you possibly be against equality between the sexes” but forty years later and we’re still waiting to find out what exactly feminism has done that benefits both men and women. Years of crooked actions cannot hide behind a dictionary definition. 

Let’s look at feminism’s most common grievances, better known as lies, and you tell me why you think we are immoral for not playing along: 

Wage gap myth: Where misogynist businesses are deliberately breaking the law and losing billions in profits by paying men more than women, simply because America hates women. Also, you’d think if women were being unfairly underpaid, they would sue their employer since there’s already two major laws that are enforced to prevent pay discrimination and they would be perfectly in their rights to sue, yet they can never find evidence of it once facts and honesty become a requirement, I wonder why that would be? The myth also collapses the moment you realize the entire framework of it is not comparing an apple to an apple, it’s the obvious difference in wages between a male accountant and female cleaner instead of comparing a male accountant to a female accountant and a male cleaner to a female cleaner. 

Male privilege myth: Where despite the fact men are less educated, less graduate, have shorter life expectancies, commit the most suicide, the majority of victims of all violent crime, make up nearly all workplace and service deaths, nearly all those incarcerated, have less legal rights, do society’s most disgusting, dangerous and backbreaking jobs, expected to give up their life for a woman and receive little to no support or charity for men’s issues and diseases, no shelters or protection, no grants or gender-based scholarships, males are still born into a world of privilege where they can sail through life with a breeze while being responsible for women’s oppression by merely existing.

Toxic masculinity: Where the behavioral differences and the core identity of being a male is toxic and not only affects all boys but it’s also responsible for harming women. This framework allows feminists to contextualize all of the bad experiences they’ve had with men under a broad umbrella of “toxic masculinity.” It’s the best way to blame men as a whole without directly pointing the finger. If masculinity is really toxic, then what’s the remedy? We already know the answer. Stripping, or feminists would call it liberating men from their masculinity and then they go on to encourage women to be ass kickin, beer drinkin bosses who’s life is work and having onenightstands with a whole bunch of weak men. 

Rape culture myth: Where America supports and tolerates a “rape epidemic” known as ‘1 in 5′ (which is a myth itself) and the only way to overcome it is to pull young boys aside in class and tell them over and over that they are potential rapists and rape is wrong. Have you noticed all of these injustices perfectly sums up life under Islamic law by the way. Instead rape culture in America is statues and Blurred Lines. RAINN, the largest anti-rape organization in the country, says “In the last few years, there has been an unfortunate trend towards blaming “rape culture” for the extensive problem of sexual violence on campus. It is important not to lose sight of a simple fact: Rape is caused not by cultural factors but by the conscious decisions, of a small percentage of the community, to commit a violent crime.” 

Then we have manspreading, mansplaining, the male gaze, heteronormativity, crush the patriarchy. Does any of this scream “equality between the sexes”? Or does it have a nasty whiff of deceit, lies and attempts to demonize men and provoke an oppressor-victim paradigm that helps give feminism the power it needs to continue to entice more impressionable young women and continue to rake in the masses of donations and funding? 

And yet you still pretend to have the moral high ground. You have to understand, most people who oppose feminism were once a feminist. You’re under the naive impression that we have no real reason for not supporting it and we “just don’t understand.” Here’s the problem, the majority of women aren’t feminists and it’s because they do understand feminism. Indoctrination only works on an empty mind. That’s the problem. There’s nothing you can “teach” or “explain” to us that we didn’t once say ourselves. 

I understand you’re probably used to arguing with anti-feminists who just shitpost and troll feminists as they have nothing better to do. But the next time you spam my inbox with dumb messages saying I’m immoral and I don’t understand feminism, please come equipped with something a little better. 

All you’re doing is proving my point: Feminism is an emotion-driven scam with no evidence, no facts or credibility. It’s a girls club where only those who agree are allowed membership, if you’re a conservative woman, Trump supporting woman, a pro-life woman or a woman who even slightly steps out of the ideological party line, you join the straight white men as the enemy. Feminism stopped standing for equality a long time ago. 

I already have a feeling you’re not going to reply so I won’t go on. Though if you want to talk more or you’ve managed to find a solid argument against anything I’ve said, please feel free to message me at any time :) xx 

[supercoolgamesstuff-blog]

Building Stronger Communities - Game Informer

Introduction Ever play an online game and feel your blood pressure rise over complete frustration with poor sportsmanship, or even worse felt your anxiety spike due to harassment and bullying taking place right before your eyes? A game is only as strong as the community that supports it, but what happens when a few bad apples disrupt the flow and prevent others from having fun? Most gamers have a story where they’ve experienced griefing or team-killing, or even worse had another player verbally insult them in a way that goes well beyond “trash talk.” In fact, a recent study by anti-bullying organization Ditch the Label reported that 57 percent of the young people it surveyed experienced bullying online while playing games; even more alarming was 22 percent said it caused them to stop playing. Instead of drawing people to games, are more people turning away from them due to these unpleasant social interactions? Negative experiences playing games online aren’t anything new; you can go back to the earlier days of commercial MMORPGs, such as EverQuest and Ultima Online, and find plenty of examples of these scenarios. A common perception among gamers has been it just comes with the territory if you want to play online, but that doesn’t make it okay. Playing games should bring people together, and as gamers, we all know how powerful these experiences can be. Nobody should have to tolerate hate speech or threats to their safety to simply engage with their hobby online. This issue has only continued to heat up as more games are evolving and becoming online-centric. The extra emphasis on their social aspects has forced developers to get creative to help encourage players to “play nice.” With more initiatives and efforts in this area, we chatted with leaders across the industry, from developers figuring out solutions to companies that specialize in moderation, to gain insight into the ever-growing and complex issue.

Riot has experimented with many different design tactics to address disruptions in League of Legends It's About Disruption

It’s About Disruption

The word “toxic” seems to go hand-in-hand with online gaming and has been used as a way to describe problematic, negative players who go out of their way to make the experience unpleasant for others. Maybe it’s a player who’s purposely throwing a match in Dota 2, or spamming insults in League of Legends’ chat to make someone feel bad about their skills. This is what many developers consider “disruptive behavior” and is the preferred term when discussing these types of individuals. No matter the phrasing, it still all comes down to one thing: They are getting in the way of how the game is meant to be experienced. Every developer we spoke to for this feature commented on this specifically and why it’s a bummer. “It’s in everyone’s best interest to make playing their games a fun, happy experience because that’s why people go to play these games – they want to have a fun time,” says Overwatch principal designer Scott Mercer. This also extends to keeping players invested in a gaming experience. If something doesn’t feel fun or pleasant, why stick around? Dave McCarthy, head of operations at Xbox, puts forth a simple comparison to illustrate how important it is that these digital landscapes feel safe and protected: “I just think it’s as simple as, ‘Would you walk into a physical space, anywhere where you face harassment, or are made to feel unwelcome by certain imagery or language that’s used there?’ No, of course you wouldn’t; you get out of that space physically. And the same is true for the digital space.”

Overwatch When players log into games, they look for the social norms to get an idea of what’s acceptable. Is it a more laid back, jokey atmosphere? Is it composed of serious competitors wanting to get down to business? That’s why it’s extremely important the tone is set early in games and services. Chris Priebe, founder and CEO of Two Hat Security, a company that provides moderation tools, says that a community’s identity forms on day one and that’s why it’s so important for those behind the games to build and inform the culture. “When people launch a game, they need to be thinking about, ‘How am I building the community and putting people in the community?’ I think too often in the game industry it’s just, ‘Launch it and the culture will form itself.’” Priebe discussed how oftentimes moderation and chat features are thought about far too late in development, without much consideration going into how to shape the community. He compared it to hosting a party and how it takes shape once you set the tone. “If you don’t set a tone, it can go very, very poorly,” Priebe says. “That’s why people have bouncers at the front door. Somehow with games, we don’t think we need to put bouncers at the front door, and we wonder why things go so terribly wrong.” While this might seem discouraging, in more recent years. Priebe says he has seen an increased effort going into changing this. People across the industry are working hard to find answers, whether that’s more transparent guidelines, better moderation tools, or designing solutions within the game. However, it all comes with time and experience, using the community as a testing ground.

Blizzard most recently introduced role queue to help bypass team composition disputes in Overwatch

The Fair Play Alliance’s Mission

As developers seek solutions, it’s become apparent that collaboration is going to be a huge tool moving forward. Here’s where The Fair Play Alliance, a global coalition of game companies, plans to “unlock the best possible online experiences for players everywhere.” Over 120 companies are represented with a great mix of key players around the industry, such as Blizzard, Mixer, Roblox, and Epic Games. “The Alliance is about driving lasting change for game design” says co-founder Carlos Figueiredo, who also is the director of community safety and trust at Two Hat Security. With an eye toward making games more “positive and productive experiences,” The Fair Play Alliance is in place to detect problems before they snowball. “Something people can miss is the way you design your game can be conducive to the experience,” Figueiredo says. “The environment in the game can influence negative behavior. This is at the very top mind of the Alliance … if you really think about game design and how it can be used to facilitate and foster those positive interactions.” The goal is to better understand the needs of players and how to ensure online games are a positive experience for everyone.” For more information, visit fairplayalliance.org. The Learning Process

The Learning Process

The more people we spoke to about this topic, the more it was clear how complicated and difficult of an issue it is. Most companies are experimenting with different features or tools to see what works, and some are even still deciding where to draw the line between “okay” and “not okay.” “It turns out that calling something toxic is difficult to design for,” says Weszt Hart, head of player dynamics at Riot Games. “It’s difficult to make decisions on, because it’s so subjective. What’s toxic to you might not be toxic to somebody else. Trash talk could be for some people considered toxic, but for others, that’s just what we do with our friends.” Working on League of Legends, a team-based game that earned quite a reputation for its toxic community, Hart says it was challenging for the team to figure out where to focus to mitigate these issues. To figure out what the community considered “good” and “bad,” Riot presented the now-defunct Tribunal, where players logged in and reviewed cases, deciding if an offender should be disciplined or pardoned. After this, Riot tried encouraging more positive interactions by rolling out the honor system, a way to give your teammate kudos if you thought they did a good job. “But then we realized that all of those systems were after-the-fact, they were all after the games,” Hart explains. “They weren’t helping to avoid potential transgressions. We needed to identify where the problems were actually happening, maybe even before games.”

Rainbow Six Seige Enter team builder. “Team builder was looking at addressing, I suppose a way to put it is, a shortcoming of our design,” Hart says. “Because as the community evolved, the concept of a meta evolved with it. Players started telling us how to play and the system wasn’t recognizing their intent, so in an effort to play the way they wanted to play, they were essentially yelling out in chat the role that they wanted. We needed to find a way to help the system, help players play the way they wanted.” Riot created team builder for matches to start out on a better note, as a way to decrease players entering matches already frustrated, which often just increased the chance of negative interactions. While Riot isn’t the first to deal with players treating each other poorly, the influence of its systems can be seen around the industry. Take Blizzard’s cooperative shooter Overwatch, for example. Overwatch launched back in 2016, and while being considered one of the more positive communities, it dealt with its share of problem players, which game director Jeff Kaplan often had to address in his developer update videos. Kaplan finally put it bluntly: “Our highest-level philosophy is, if you are a bad person doing bad things in Overwatch, we don’t want you in Overwatch.” Since launch, Overwatch has received several improvements to the game: better reporting tools, an endorsement system encouraging positivity, and most recently, role queue, which took away the extra frustration and bickering that often erupted over team composition. The latter two are very reminiscent of League’s honor system and team builder. Overwatch is far from Blizzard’s first foray into the world of online gaming, so the team anticipated some issues, but it also charted new territory. “I don’t think we were expecting exactly the sort of behavior that happened after launch,” says senior producer Andrew Boyd. “I know that there were a lot of new things for us to deal with. I think this is one of the first games where we’re really dealing with voice as an integrated part of the game, and that changed the landscape a lot. That said, when we saw it, obviously, addressing those issues became very important to us very quickly, and we started to take steps to make the game a better place for folks.” While developers can try to catch potential issues ahead of time, most of the time they really don’t expose themselves until the game is up and running. Ubisoft Montreal experienced this first-hand with Rainbow Six Siege, forcing the company to crack down on bad behavior and get creative with its solutions. A player behavior team was created to “focus on promoting the behaviors we hope to see in the game,” says community developer Karen Lee. It’s here that the team worked on Reverse Friendly Fire (RFF) system to help with team-killing. “RFF was first concepted to help contain the impact of players abusing the game’s friendly fire mechanic,” Lee says.

Rainbow Six Siege’s developer updates openly discuss toxicity and the solutions going forward RFF makes it so if you attempt to harm an ally, the damage reverses straight back to you. Since then, Ubisoft has iterated on it to ensure it works on all the different operators and their gadgets. Now, before any new operators go live, the player-behavior team reviews it, trying to determine all the ways they could be used unintentionally by the community to cause griefing. “We also have weekly and monthly reports that go out to the entire team,” Lee explains. “These help everyone gauge the health of the community, and we highlight the top concerns from the week.” Many different game companies and organizations have been coming together to share ideas and work toward change. Even though developers have learned much of what works and what doesn’t, there isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution, as all games are different, whether it’s the audience or genre. “The problem space is too big to look at any particular feature, and say, ‘This is how you do it,’” Hart says. “There aren’t best practices yet for what we’re calling player dynamics, which is the field of design for player-to-player interactions and motivations. Depending on your game and your genre, some things may work better than others.”

EA community team senior director Adam Tanielian speaks at the Building Healthy Communities Summit at this year’s EA Play

Streaming, Gaming, And Mixer’s Example

Mixer has become a big force in the streaming world, which was only amplified by a partnership with Tyler “Ninja” Blevins, who has now amassed over 1 million followers on the platform. Gaming and streaming are so intertwined that it’s a big part of how people discover games nowadays. That means the needs of moderation are only increasing in these areas both for streamers and their viewers. Mixer came onto the scene back in 2016 when it was called Beam, and it has taken a stance against toxicity and vowed to improve tools to help combat it. The entire tone of Mixer has been much more friendly and inviting than its competitors. General manager Chad Gibson thinks it comes down to Mixer’s focus on community from day one and thinking about ways to foster it. “If there was one thing that’s probably had the most profound impact, it’s been transparency and consistency,” he says. This means making the rules of what’s acceptable as clear as possible and constantly striving to improve upon that. Mixer just recently launched a new system called Toxicity Screen, which allows streamers to determine the words and type of communication that is allowed in their chat. Streamers can also fine-tune it to be more restrictive to new members and loosen it for longtime viewers they’ve built a trust with. “It’s important for us to give the streamers the ability and the tools to foster the type of growth they want,” Gibson explains. Gibson thinks Mixer openly speaking out against toxicity has only helped it achieve the community it wants to foster. “We want it to be really clear what is allowed on the platform, and the more we can be consistent about this, the better our streamers can help push their community in that direction as well.” Putting The Power In The Community

Putting The Power In The Community

Building healthier communities doesn’t just fall on the developers and publishers. Sure, designing different mechanics and improving moderation tools are steps in the right direction, but they also need the community’s help to be successful. It makes sense. The people that play your game make it what it is and know it the best. That’s why more and more developers and companies are depending on their communities to give feedback and self-moderate by reporting bad player behavior. “Everyone needs to be involved,” Priebe says. “The gamers need to say, ‘Look, I’m sick of this.’” Priebe was quick to point out that he thinks most gamers already feel this way but feels more need to put their foot down and be vocal to help shift the culture. “It will take some gamers to say, ‘No, that isn’t cool. You can’t be in our guild unless you have good sportsmanship,’” he says. Many believe the community should be just as involved with the process as they are when giving feedback on games for betas. “We need to work with our players and say, ‘What do you guys think?’ The same way we do when we develop our games,” says EA community team senior director Adam Tanielian. “We think the same idea should apply to our communities. How do we keep them healthy? And how do we build tools?” EA recently held a summit devoted to building healthier communities to start getting feedback from gamers and devs alike. Born from this was a “player council,” which Tanielian says meets regularly and is similar to the ones they have for their various franchises, but this focuses on feedback for tools, policies, and how EA should categorize toxicity. “We know that we have to take action,” Tanielian says. “We can’t just talk about it and not do something. Some things take longer than others, but there are always things we can be doing. There are always areas that we can be addressing.”

Most platforms have parental settings, like the Xbox One (pictured here), to give parents some control over their child’s online experience Many people we chatted with discussed how easy-to-use reporting tools have been essential, but players need to be encouraged to use them. If they’re hard to find, require players to visit a website, or are needlessly complex, developers and moderators simply won’t get the valuable information they need. Reporting also helps developers learn what the community values. “The community itself is sort of driving what’s good and what’s not great for it in terms of communication, in terms of that play experience,” Mercer says. “I think the most important thing about the reporting is it’s a way for the community to help police itself, to help determine amongst itself what they find acceptable or not.” Players often feel more encouraged to report if they know it’s facilitating change. Sure, giving players the ability to mute or block players that rub them the wrong way helps, but once the Overwatch team started following up on reports and letting the players know action was taken, they noticed it led to an increase in reporting. “That was important, reaching out and building that trust,” Mercer says. “Saying, ‘Hey, as a member of the Overwatch community, you are part of the solution to dealing with issues of players acting poorly within a game.’”

Xbox allows players to search for others with similar goals so they can team up in games While self-moderation has certainly been key to helping get problem players out of games, Microsoft saw an opportunity to take it one step further. For those who just want to play or converse with like-minded individuals, Microsoft created the “clubs” feature (online meeting spaces) on Xbox One, where people with similar values, interests, and goals can come together. McCarthy says Microsoft has seen great success in this area. “We discovered the strong communities are not only ones where you provide kind of a safe space and a set of norms, but they’re also the ones where they get some degree of self-governance,” he explains. Microsoft has also used clubs as a testing ground for new moderation features, which McCarthy says are in the works. A long-term goal for Xbox is to give you more choices and tools in how you play. “What I mean is put the dials and sliders ultimately in your hands so that you could decide, ‘Hey, I want to filter out stuff that is detected as harassing-type messages,’ or I’ll be silly, like, ‘I want to filter out the word ‘peanut butter’ and never see the word peanut butter again.’ You could customize down to whatever level you felt was appropriate as a user.” Involving the community and putting moderation tools in their hands is a step in the right direction, and it’s encouraging to see more companies put forth ways for the community to help. After all, this is too big of an issue to be tackled alone, and it will only grow in complexity as games continue to get bigger and are turning more and more into social activities. Building A Better Future

Building A Better Future

The industry doesn’t get better if it’s not constantly finding new solutions, and many companies are realizing that more needs to be done as our technology grows. “This needs to be a solved problem,” Priebe says. “Because games are more and more voice-driven, especially as you need collaboration more than ever. People are realizing that if you have social games, that’s where your friends are.” While game developers are still behind in this area, there is plenty of hope for the future. “What we are facing in gaming is more of a cultural shift over the last 10 years ... and it is on us to react more quickly than we have in the past to stay ahead of the curve,” says Rainbow Six Siege community developer Craig Robinson. “Right now, we are playing catch-up, and that’s not where we need to be in order to get toxicity under control. I expect for there to be a ton of improvements over the next 5-10 years across the industry, especially with the various publishers and developers sharing their learnings and insights through the Fair Play Alliance.”

Minecraft, the best-selling game of all time, is available across 20 different platforms, making community moderators and parental controls essential And plenty of people tackling this issue have already been thinking ahead. Right now, we’ve depended largely on reactive measures to moderate people. The problem with that is it’s after the fact, as in the damage is already done. Many have an eye toward being more proactive, which means trying to anticipate problems before they happen, whether that’s designing to combat them or depending more on filters and A.I. “I think one of the biggest challenges is being stuck in the ways we’ve done things before,” Hart says. “We have the social needs increasing for players online; we need to think of our games differently. We need to be much more proactive. If we wait to have a game to be thinking about how people may interact with each other within that game, we’re already behind because then we have to retrofit systems onto an existing game as opposed to proactively designing to reduce disruption and to help produce those successful interactions. A short way of putting it is we need to move from punitive to proactive.” What’s encouraging is that technology is only going to get better, and many feel optimistic that A.I. will be a great asset in moderation going forward. “A.I. is something that could really be a difference-maker with regards to how we’re able to moderate and how we’re able to enforce its scale across the community,” Tanielian says. Companies like Microsoft have already been investing in this area by trying to get as much data as possible to ensure the A.I. is accurate. “There’s actually goodness in those models getting trained more and more by more data,” McCarthy says. “As an example, we’ve done something called ‘photo DNA’ at Microsoft, where we tag certain images and we actually share that database with a large range of other companies. This is where I think collaboration is actually really important in the industry. Because if we can start to share some of these models and learning, then they get more sophisticated and accurate, and they actually can help a larger range of users overall. That’s just something we have to keep chipping away at: How do we utilize powerful technology like that in the right way? And to get it trained broadly across the industry to do the things we want it to do?” These are big questions, but they’re the ones we can’t afford to leave unsolved, as we’re spending more and more time in these online spaces. Read the full article

[maneaterwithtail]

Why the resistance to "fan girl" Ms. Marvel?

highlights of the discussion

Popesize1 day ago (edited)

For me, i guess it was the overexposure, and you must like her-attitude, that made me say no. Same with Captain Marvel as the new flagship. Her origin and faith never really mattered to me. I remember finding Dust in one of the young x-team (was it Hellions?) interesting. The obsessive nerd and fan-girling was a bit annoying, i can agree on that. Mostly because the fans i have come to know, never really behaved like that. But it might be more common with girls. What do i know? -But never the big tick-off

Dakina Demino1 day ago

I don't think its the character itself, but rather the relentless media worship of her as some kind of new age comic book Jesus that really took off five years ago. If you said anything that the pros and the media took as negative, you'd get called the usual things like nazi, racist and so on. You'd also get bot blocked on twitter and smeared in a closed community chat room. This has the side effect of reflecting back on Kamala who gets the reputation of being a progressive garbage character. A second point is that less than a year ago, the pros and media were still running smear campaigns against their own consumer bases, painting them as some vast army of zombie nazi kkk Trump voting hate mob made up of Russian cyber bots that wants to gun down immigrants. Kamala is polarizing in that game as she represents two things a lot of Marvel fans hate. One they got attacked by people claiming they are evil, anti minority, gate keeping old white fans and two, the character represents the catalyst of Marvel telling its own consumer base to f**k off in more of less that precise wording. As for me, I'm not angry at Kamala. I'm pissed off that an awesome cyperpunk game series like Dues Ex got axed so the studio could make a game that seems designed from the ground up to start shit and trigger outrage.

Nioh Arcadia1 day ago

As the Target Audience for Kamala I want to like her but (as of right now) I really fucking hate her 😡 She feels like the living embodiment of a subreddit and after G Willow she's Only written as a hyper Melenial 😒. Also like you said she feels like "hey you can see yourself can't you nerd?" It's pretty insulting and lazy. Also her being a mage fan of other Superheros makes her character less interesting because she lacks her own Agency. Now-a-days she's pretty boring and I or anyone else really couldn't give a shit

Raheil Rahman1 day ago

As a Muslim, the comic was groundbreaking. Grant Morrison's "Vinamarama" was the first book that spoke to my experience in my lifetime, but this was a pop extension of that. Her family life, her need to hide her identity from her conservative family, was a great update on Peter Parker. She was a nerdy fangirl, which was fun, and she was a very bubbly and enthusiastic character, which I found entertaining. For a time.

 I was turned off by the comic due to the very decompressed pace (obviously to pad a story and sell more issues) and the constant reboots. I haven't read the issues later when she was pushed into Avengers, but that's because all Marvel and DC comics are wearing thin with me. It's all reboots and re-mixes of familiar characters to push some marketing that has nothing to do with comics. I agree with [Comics, by Perch] on this.

 Kamala Khan was forced down the fans throats, but there were many fans of her that have nothing to do with her comics (which is the future of all IPs in this business, I think). The market isn't for comics, which I get is your focus, but she was made to be bigger than comics, like or not. 

 But I don't care, because Kamala Khan has allowed all of us to know and discuss things and issues that we have never done before. Particularly, the arc where they discuss Partition, the division of India into Pakistan and Bangledesh, a tragic event that my father experienced personally, was worth all the over-exposure of this character alone. This was a huge historical event that almost no one has heard of, and this book put a focus on it even among older people of the sub-continent who had never read a comic in their lives, the pages were being shared by email and on Facebook by people my father and mother's age.

Did it sell the comic? Hell no.

 But it was a good thing for the comic world, for the Pakistani world, for the American fans, on a whole.

 And to be honest Perch, I love your channel, but this very rant plays into the idea OG fans will reject this new character based on her background. Many people say her powers are boring, her character is mediocre, and they're all right, but they, and you, miss the point. I get she's been pushed down our throats and I agree that she isn't the best, but the fact that you relate to the kid who acts like a jerk, saying he represents the average comic fan (I don't relate to him, I relate to her, which might be the point of what I'm saying), while that scene is an over-exaggeration, like all superhero melodrama is, I have experienced exactly that kind of situation, being talked down to, and I've seen this happen a lot when it is a young girl and especially if it is a person of color. The fact this irks you is acceptable, but I see a lot of truth in it, even if it is over the top soap opera dialogue.

 I know you are going to say that you were only discussing how the industry, the fans of comics themselves reacted to it and her forcibly increased profile in the universe of comics, and as a fan of comics for almost 30 years, I see all your points. But I think you're reaction is an over-reaction, Kamala Khan is a small part of the Marvel universe, and if she is being artificially being pushed to the top, I personally, have no problem with that. I don't buy the comics, and no one else has to either. And if her inclusion in comics causes people to stop buying the comic, well, I have no problem with that either. Honestly, a lot of those books were never going to be bought no matter which version of Captain Marvel or Spider-Man you put into the book. 

you know nothing jon snowden1 day ago (edited)

It is somewhat insulting the bullying of her as some sort of crucial element of her origin. “What’s her pathos?” “Oppression from comicbook nerds.”

Eric D.1 day ago

Two of the best marvel titles - Daredevil and Immortal Hulk - have one very important thing in common. Consistent creative teams that are telling good stories within a larger story arc that is being told simultaneously. The issue with Kamala Khan is the same issue that Marvel has with a lot of their characters - creative teams on a revolving door and overuse of cross over events. In that shuffle, the core of a character gets lost and we end up with flat, uninteresting characters exactly like the version of Ms. Marvel that's presented in the new Avengers game. A lot of the "problems" in comics could be corrected if the industry returned to a consistent creative team model instead of this six-issue-expiration-date on creative teams and constant title cancelations and reboots that we see now.

KelpieTales1 day ago

Pretty much what others have said before: Kamala has/had potential, her concept is solid and has been done elsewhere so it can work, her early series wasn't bad but come Civil War II things started going downhill for her sadly especially with politics becoming all the more obvious of a driving force.

 What didn't also help was overexposure and the "You must love her or else!" Mentality behind her marketing and some fans as well being directly tied into two other franchises with the same problem: Carol Danvers as Captain Marvel and the Inhumans being made into knock-off X-Men. Since Disney got the rights to X-Men and shelves the Inhumans after the damage done to them I can see why they're quiet on Kamala being one. You also got a point on her surface traits being over exaggerated by other writers most specifically her being a Muslim and a Fangirl, with the rest kind of varying. One example is Waid's version of her is known for being so upset with how the Avengers wouldn't personally rebuild buildings destroyed in battle she left to form the Champions. First issue of her new series by Ahmed had her accidentally destroy a store and came off bratty to the justifiably angry owner. Some will see it as writers not doing their research which sadly happens quite a bit or worst case the character seen as  a hypocrite to some especially if they're a fairly new characters with other factors going against them. One thing that personally bothers me about her is how Marvel and certain media praise her as their "best thing since Spider-Man" when she hasn't really done much to earn that title in terms of personal accomplishments. She's made from a similar mold as Peter and there's nothing wrong with doing that kind of "ordinary kid becomes a superhero" with a different cultural twist to it but it felt like they handled Kamala (and other modern hyped, young characters) with kid gloves compared to their predecessors. I don't think she should see all her loved ones murdered in front of her but maybe at least building a rogues gallery that challenges her more other than simply "fascism" and "Islamaphobia" or something. Then again, this could be because her writers are afraid of getting called "bigots" if something bad happens to her even if it's something white guys routinely deal with I.e. recent Star Wars comic had Boba Fett kill a black woman, just like he killed so many others before, and suddenly SWHatesWomen is a trending tag. Kamala's books also seem more geared to a YA for nerd girls and maybe younger like other books out there like Squirrel Girl so I can see that as a rift between her series and the usual comic fanbase that tends to be teen boys and men. 

 Also, no qualms about the costume but I get how stretchy powers can be a little weird for some to get over or have a character be fun and creative with it.

 Also, that scene with the "real fans" bullies was eye roll worthy. I'm not denying fan elitism exists and I've seen it first hand from people of all walks of life. However, here it feels like it plays into the narrative of "fanboys are bigots who hate sharing their hobbies with girls/PoC/LGBT+" and of course, if you don't like characters like Kamala for any reason you're just like them. There's also how a lot of comic fans tend to just be super awkward, or even autistic, and just get carried away talking about their hobby while unintentionally coming off rude. I'll admit I've been there trying to talk to someone who acted like an authority on the comics when they didn't seem to ever read them and seemed to just watch the shows (while ironically talking down about others who watch superhero shows and don't read the books). Not to mention, the concern of hobbies being re-tooled to be more "inclusive" for people who never cared about them before while alienating the older fanbase.

Gabriel Hernandez1 day ago

Here's an anecdote that somewhat backs up your theory. Disney XD came out with Black Panther's Quest just after the release of the film. I remember hearing about it and thought it would be some light, fun entertainment. When the first episode came out (you can legit watch it here: https://youtu.be/0B9JOAX99pc), Ms. Marvel had as much dialog as Black Panther, certainly more than any other Avenger, and she was at the front of the team during the big fight scene in the first 5 minutes. I remember thinking "Why is this person here? Why is she getting so much attention in a Black Panther cartoon? Where's the Hulk? Why is Ms Marvel doing so much of the talking and in the same timeframe you have nothing from either Capt. America or Black Widow? What is this?" In other words, Ms Marvel was being shoved to the front and treated as a co-leader of the Avengers when - and here's the key - her canon and her powers weren't established enough to earn that spot. That's the difference. She didn't earn her place at the table, and it just comes off as forced and fake. Just my opinion.

Cole1 day ago

When I was in Washington DC last summer we visited American History Smithsonian and they unexpectedly had an exhibit on superheroes where they had some comics in a case and there was a Kamala khan Ms Marvel #1 next to a bunch of classic issues and first appearances. It puts things into perspective beyond a small internet troll bubble. That clip was kinda lame lol but the character has a large audience.

Ibena8271 day ago (edited)

I do disagree on the idea that people weren't ranting about her character when she first debut because they're were literal blogs and videos dedicated to bashing her character and her faith, and even those people who claim her comic was failing always forget to mention that while single issues weren't selling alot, her first volume actually sold remarkably well, making it the best selling series in that year. Although her character came from the all new and all different line-up there is a reason why unlike others like Riri Williams, America Chavez or even Nova she was able to go into other media so easily and it's simply because her character was able to appeal to new readers of comics with a young protagonist who held a more optimistic outlook on the Marvel universe as it was going into so much change at the time, it also helped that her story focus less on action and more on her daily life and how it involves into her heroic life. I could understand if people just don't like Ms. Marvel because she's just not their favorite type of hero but it would be weird to criticize the character for being comparable to her multiple relaunches "mentor" or with her being responsible for the decline of Marvel comics

Comics, by Perch1 day ago

I didn't say there were none... but if you look at the volume it was easily 1/20th of the volume of what occurred later in her run. For a period of time there were more articles condemning the insults than the insults themselves. Of course, that did change.

Horizon Brave1 day ago (edited)

I despise...DESPISE the fandom at times... This shouldn't even be a thing... I can guarantee you...promise you.... if Captain Marvel was not a teen girl, this conversation, this "agenda" that everyone spouts, this constant push back of anything about this character would not exist. Find it funny that all of the characters that create controversy and and bring out the cliche descriptors like SJW and MarySue are all women.  I have yet to hear anyone whine and bitch about male characters 'ruining' the story or pushing politics etc

inotaishu11 day ago

Ms. Marvel wasn't even the first muslim girl in the Marvel Universe. DUST came years before her. I think the problem with the character is that she was so long connected to something that looks like an agenda instead of having the character stand on her own.

Me

Once upon a time there was a online conflict called gamergate

 it was an outgrowth of the increased mainstreamification with it greater demographic Alteration of fandom. Where they were a vehicle for major studios putting things out as well as trying to chase different demographics and markets. 

alongside this is in fact a long-term attempt to make fandom much more female friendly. with, yes, pre-existing issues of sexism. With the sudden influx of this social capital some factions happily hook their train up either for validation, advancement, but especially social power. This all comes to a head through three major actions.

 you probably heard names like Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian.  needless to say fandom isn't just one thing. 

Stuff that happens in the game sphere creates an attitude because there are members who share multiple hobbies but especially with comics people wanted to act like they were social activists and one way they did that was by creating the bunch of traits that they knew what piss people off and then attack a group that they knew had less social capital.

 so in order to combat what was perceived as negative feelings for Muslims and girls with interest in geeky hobbies and or science fiction they created the polemic fangirl. Especially to the counter the nasty statements against then popular brown hair girls such as Bella Swan and Katniss Everdeen.

This was addressing a very real issue, much as was pointed out in the book Lovecraft Country

We had genre fiction that had, on its basis, racist assumptions ideas and so on whether that was Tarzan, John Carter of Mars, and yes Lovecraft. but much like the creation of Miles Morales and several other characters you couldn't help but feel, much as you noted with this latest version, that the point of the character wasn't to be a character to celebrate and build a relationship with audience and this genre, but to brow beat the audience. 

 This is especially with fangirl interests being lionized as a social good even when in many ways just as venal Petty and low-key  messed up. Something that nobody would own up to until it was socially advantaged to do so.  

As an example people constantly pointing out how mean male nerds are to female or anything that's associated with female or progressive or gay  fashions. Until suddenly they want to beat on those people then suddenly they can acknowledge the exact same traits those accused bigots with people were mad about as existing let alone allowing to be judged as flawed It's hilarious because I can point to things like people flipping out about the last Jedi and how people jump the gun on a character like admiral holdo. But then turn around and prosecute the in their name reylo fandom because they're all fighting against patriarchy. In short it's very clear when someone makes a character and they're meant to be a learning lesson for the audience

. And very deliberately from conception that was the point of Miles Morales and Kamala Khan. The only positive thing you could say at least with KK is that she was deliberately meant to be empathetic to that kind of girl. the problem is much like [Perch] said when they start saying she was the future it very much came with an implicit “you guys are the past and you guys sucked until we came here”

 It's with this attitude along with that, even though I don't have a problem reading the first three or so  of her trade, she's associated with the push of the inhumans which was very much more mandated by the fox marvel Disney pissing match; To the fact that she has Loki guest star along with agents of shield thus meaning that she was very much part of the then media tie in and fangirl gasm of pushing Loki which also fed into the idea of Loki as the best queer boyfriend; and they made it clear that this was going to be the future. basically they were going to be as Petty as they always were just aiming towards fangirl. as opposed to males’ preference  

 and then they were going to tell us how we were monsters for not going along with it. 

 And again those first three trades pretty well written and okay ish. They're all about character. which makes them kind of interesting but that doesn't change the fact that you can easily see what they're trying to do with having the literal villain called the inventor who's also Thomas Edison who's all about demoralizing and exploiting the younger generation, who all turn out to be super geniuses anyway,  All this and a wolverine cameo.

Added in like [Perch] noted that people who were not about comics couldn't shut up about praising her as the future of comics as if everything was crap until she showed up and it just hurt a lot. especially as you noted it was all this other mess going on but she was part of the initiative of streamlining marvel towards the media Disney push. and very deliberately made in order to push out everybody who would come before even down to the likes of the audience to push for a different audience who they said was a more moral audience 

So whether she was a hit outside of the morass of Marvel determined whether she’d be the new centralizing focus for it.

[english2121]

Discussion Leader 12/5

Karina

Quote #1: “So don’t expect stars in what’s coming: nothing will twinkle, this is opaque material and by its very nature despised by everyone. That’s because this story lacks a cantabile melody. Its rhythm is sometimes discordant. And it has facts. I suddenly fell for facts without literature--facts are hard stones and action is now more interesting to me than thinking, you can’t get away from facts” (Lispector pg. 8).

Question #1: Based on our previous discussion in class how is this quote representative of postmodern literature?

Quote #2: I do not intend for what I’m about to write to be complex, though I’ll have to use the words that sustain you. The story--I determine with false free will--will have around seven characters and I’m obviously one of the more important. I, Rodrigo S.M. An old tale, this, since I don’t want to be all modern and invent trendy words to make myself look original. So that’s why I’ll try contrary to my normal habits to write a story with a beginning, middle and “grand finale” followed by silence and falling rain” (pg. 5).

Question #2: In this quote the narrator, as a writer, shows consciousness of readers and seems to address them directly. In what tone does he seem to address the readers and their needs? Does this quote seem like a criticism of writing and books? If so in what way?

Quote #3: “Now I want to speak of the northeastern girl. This is what I mean: she like a stray dog was guided exclusively by herself.I too, from one failure to the next have reduced myself to myself by at least I want to encounter the world and it’s God. I’d like to add by the way of information about the young girl and myself, that we live exclusively in the present because it is always eternally today and tomorrow will be a today, eternity is a state of things at this very moment” (pg. 10).

Questions #3: Given our discussion of identity in the postmodern period how does the narrator touch upon this topic in this quote? How does he touch upon collective vs. individual relationship? What may he mean when he says “eternity is a state of things at this very moment”.

Quote #4: “I’m sure of one thing: this narrative will deal with something delicate: the creation of a whole person who surely is as alive as I am. Take care of her because all I can do is show her so you can recognize her on the street, walking lightly because of her quivering thinness. And what if my narrative is sad? Afterwards I’ll surely write something cheerful, though why cheerful? Because I too am a man of hosannas and someday, perhaps, I’ll sing praises instead of the difficulties of the northeastern girl” (pg. 11).

Question #4: What parallels do you think the narrator is trying to draw between himself and “the northeastern girl”? What if any do you think he might be hoping the readers draw between themselves and the character? For what purpose?

Quote #5: “Nothing in her was iridescent, though the parts of her skin between the blotches had a slight opal glow. Not that it mattered. Nobody looked at her on the street , she was like cold coffee. And that’s how time passed for the girl. She blew her nose on the hem of her underwear. She didn’t have that delicate thing called charm. I’m the only one who finds her charming. Only I, her author lover her. I suffer for her. And I’m the only one who can say this: ‘what do you ask of me weeping that I wouldn’t give you singing? That girl didn’t know she was what she was, just as a dog doesn’t know it’s a dog. So she didn’t feel unhappy. The only thing she wanted was to live. She didn’t know for what, she didn’t ask questions. Maybe she thought there was a little bitty glory in living. She thought people had to be happy. So she was. Before her birth was she an idea? Before her birth was she dead? And after her birth she would die?” (pg.19)

Question #5: How have the narrator’s sentiments towards his character changed in comparison to earlier in the book? Can the narrator’s conflicting sentiments towards his character shed light on the postmodern perspective? How so?

Argument:  The book The Hour of the Star contains many of the same questions and uncertainty that plague postmodernism. It is a book that contains more questions than answers. Through the perspective of the narrator we are made to question what writing is? What life is? Is it possible to truly separate the self from what is written? The narrator claims to love the character he is creating and yet at the same time he speaks of her with much disdain, criticizing and belittling her existence, one which he is creating. The complex relationship between narrator and character seem like an introspective examination of life and an active effort to reconcile the parts of oneself that one loves and hates in order to make sense of it all.

Crystal Williams

Quote #1: “If this story doesn’t exist now, it will. Thinking is an act. Feeling is a fact. Put the two together-I am the one writing what I am writing. God is the world. Truth is always an interior and inexplicable contact. My truest life is unrecognizable, extremely interior and there is not a single word that defines it” (Lispector, 1).

Question #1: What is the connection between the truest-self and God as alluded to by Lispector? How does this relate to the genre of Post Modernism? Consider (if you are aware of Winnicott’s concepts) the notion of the true self and the false self. How does that relate to the act of writing and thinking as described by Lispector?

Quote #2: “How do I know everything that’s about to come and that I myself still don’t know, since I have never lived it? Because on a street in Rio de Janeiro I glimpsed in the air the feeling of perdition on the face of a northeastern girl. Not to mention that I as a boy grew up in the northeast. I also know things about things because I am alive. Everyone alive knows, even if they don’t know they know. So you gentlemen know more than you think and are just pretending not to” (Lispector, 2).

Question #2: What does Lispector allude to the duality of humanity and inherent intelligence and knowledge? Are both men and women endowed with the same intelligence, or is there a common truth, or knowledge that transcends gender?

Quote #3:”Could it really be that the action is beyond the word? But when I write-let things be known by their real names. Each thing is a word and when there is no word it is invented. This is your God who commanded us to invent” (Lispector, 8)”

Question #3: Who or what is God as described by Lispector? What is her connection to God? Would you consider her writing, or writing in general to be a divine act?

Consider: John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Quote #4: “The fact is I hold a destiny in my hands yet don’t feel powerful enough to invent freely: I follow a hidden, fatal line” (Lispector, 12).

Question#4: What is the fatal line that Lispector speaks on? How is it possible for her to feel powerless in a world that she created? Could this apply to us in our daily lives?

Quote #5: In her little superstitious imaginings, she thought that if by any chance she ever got a nice good taste of living- she’d suddenly cease to be the princess she was and be transformed into vermin. Because, no matter how bad her situation, she didn’t want to be deprived of herself, she wanted to be herself. She thought she’d incur serious punishment and even risk dying if she took out too much pleasure in life. So she protected herself from death by living less, consuming so little of her life that she’d never run out. This savings gave her a little security since you can’t fall farther than the ground” (Lispector, 24).

“Clarice Lispector was a great artist; she was also a middle-class wife and mother. If the portrait of the extraordinary artist is fascinating, so is the portrait of the ordinary housewife, whose life is the subject of her stories. As the artist matures, the housewife, too, grows older. When Lispector is a defiant adolescent filled with a sense of her own potential—artistic, intellectual, sexual—so are the girls in her stories. When, in her own life, marriage and motherhood take the place of precocious childhood, her characters grow up, too. When her marriage fails, when her children leave, these departures appear in her stories. When the author, once so gloriously beautiful, sees her body blemished by wrinkles and fat, her characters see the same decline in theirs; and when she confronts the final unravelling of age and sickness and death, they appear in her fiction as well” (The New Yorker, Web).

“Escaping the Jewish pogroms that were part of life in Ukraine and other parts of the Russian Empire in the late 19th–early 20th century, Lispector at age five immigrated with her parents and two older sisters to Brazil. There her mother died some four years later of syphilis, contracted from a group of Russian soldiers who had raped her” (Britannica, Web).

Question #5: With her life experiences in mind, do you feel that the northeastern girl described in the text is a facet of Lispector’s being? Why or why not? How would her experiences with the war, death and poverty shape her work and her views of the world?

Argument: Lispector argues that knowledge and experience are intricately linked to humanity and not gender. She as an author, transcends the trap of being pigeon-holed into a female narrative. Lispector is an unbiased omnipresent force who paints The Hour of The Star in trials, meaning she is writing, living and experiencing the story at the same time through different planes of existence. It is within these realms that Lispector explores the ideas of Winnicott and Freud, illuminating the theories of the true-self and false self, day-dreaming and the act of play.

Argument: Lispector in her writing uses the spark of The All (the ever creating entity, otherwise known as “God”) to conduct interrupted play that allows her to know who or what she is. Her form of play, seamless bouncing from introspective interpretations of both male and female further gives support to the notion of Lispector’s “God-self” in her writing. Writing is considered an act of creation, and this act gives her power and agency in the world of The Hour Of The Star.

[mobileautorepairpros]

Road Tests: 2019 Lamborghini Urus

Vital Statistics

Engine: 4.0 liter

Horsepower: 641

Torque: 627 lb-ft.

0-60 mph: 3.6 seconds

EPA: 12 mpg city / 17 mpg highway

The days of bemoaning the fact that sporty car builders now sell more SUVs than cars are coming to an end. It’s time to face the reality of where we are today. SUVs are win-wins. People can’t get enough of them, and they are highly profitable to build. So it’s no shocker that even Lamborghini now has an SUV…the Urus. 

Studious viewers will of course point out that this 2019 Lamborghini Urus is not the first utility vehicle from the brand; that would be the LM002, which we tested way back in 1988. 

Well, that rugged, military-spec 4X4 was nothing at all like the Urus, having more in common with a tractor than a high performance machine. The Urus on the other hand, manages to look, feel, and yes, drive much like what one expects from a modern Lamborghini supercar. 

Lamborghini was kind enough to drop off a blindingly yellow Urus test vehicle while we were at our winter proving grounds of Roebling Road Raceway near Savannah, Georgia. 

And while there is a clear priority on high-performance, the interior space is very livable as well; with great comfort, and legit room for 4 adults. 

And now here’s the part where we tell you, that being part of the Volkswagen group, the Urus is based on the Audi Q7. Technically that is correct, but needless to say, you won’t be doing a lot of parts swapping between the two; as Lambo started with just the basic architecture, and bolted their own stuff onto it include styling that is far faster than other SUV in the VW corporate stable.  

Likewise, they took just the 4.0-liter V8 twin-turbo engine’s block, and built their own version that whips up 641-horsepower and 627 lb-ft. of torque.

Then of course, Lamborghini engineers had their way with the ZF 8-speed automatic transmission and all-wheel-drive system, which includes torque vectoring, as well as four-wheel steering. 

Bottom line, it’s a 4,800-lb. sport utility that can streak to 60 in 3.6-seconds, with a factory claimed, world’s best 190 mile per hour top end, and out-handle and out-brake numerous exotic sports cars, and even get you through some light off-roading situations as well; thanks to all-wheel-drive traction and drive modes that can pump up the ride height as far as 9.8-inches. 

But nothing about the experience makes you want to direct the Urus to the Rubicon; rather, we took its talents to Roebling’s nine high speed turns. 

It feels tight and fast, no matter how you’re driving it or where you’re driving it to. And all of that’s without even clicking over to Corsa mode, where things get positively intense. 

Urus gets deceptively fast very quickly; almost making you forget you’re in an SUV. But, it can’t quite overcome the fact that your posterior is quite aways off of the pavement. 

Braking is by way of 10-piston calipers, clamping down on standard ceramic discs; performance was borderline epic.

It certainly doesn’t look like that original Rambo Lambo, nor does it really even look like an SUV in the true sense. More of a sleek hatchback that sits way off the ground, has all-wheel-drive, and rides on 21-inch wheels; or these matte finish 22s if you prefer.  

Honestly, few exotic car owners ever drive their car on a race track, or even sniff its performance potential; thus, the Urus actually makes way more sense as a daily driver, and it can still handle itself quite well, if you do get talked into a track day. 

Things inside are all Lamborghini, with no trace of Audi anything. You’ll find plenty of the traditional hexagon and Y-shapes, as well as the same TFT gauge panel used in the Huracan.

The center console features an identical start button with flip up cover, as well; but the drive mode and chassis selectors that bookend it, are more extensive. Above, are two touch screens; one for infotainment, and one for cabin comfort. 

For hauling stuff, there’s 21.8 cubic-ft. of cargo space in back, and you can always lower the air suspension to make loading easier. 

Now for the reality check. Government Fuel Economy Ratings are 12-City, 17-Highway, and 14-Combined. And pricing starts at $203,995. If ya got it, why not flaunt it in a Urus.

There’s no doubt that there are lots of Lamborghini fans that loath the idea of this 2019 Urus. But, trust us, once you drive it, there is absolutely nothing to hate about it. It’s a fantastic, modern performance car in an SUVish body. And here’s where we’d love to end this test with a bad pun about Lamborghini following the SUV herd with the Urus; but actually, they’re now in the lead. 

from MotorWeek Entries https://ift.tt/2twLsNq via IFTTT

[djgblogger-blog]

Understanding the US political divide, one word cloud at a time

http://bit.ly/2HNdbPO

In a divided United States, how can we describe who is on each side? from www.shutterstock.com

America’s political divide goes by many names – rural-urban, blue-red, metro-non-metro and left-right. We are told it is bad and that it is only getting worse, thanks to phenomena like fake news, economic uncertainty and the migration of young people away from their rural homes.

And it’s fairly common for one side of the divide to speak for the other, without knowledge of who the other really is or what they stand for. An example: The term that’s been used to describe my state’s booming economy – “Colorado’s hot streak” – is in some ways the opposite of what many rural Coloradans are experiencing. But their story rarely makes the news.

Telling someone about metro versus non-metro poverty, suicide or adult mortality rates scrapes the surface of how things are felt by those living these statistics. Descriptions never seem to do justice to how these divides are experienced, which speaks to the wisdom of the writing rule, “Show, don’t tell.”

What is that divide, really? And how can we show it?

How to communicate the divide: word clouds

I am a professor of sociology and have been studying rural and agriculture-related issues, both in the U.S. and abroad, since the late 1990s. Prior to that, I was busying growing up in rural Iowa, in the far northeast corner of the state.

A few years ago I interviewed farmers and agriculture professionals in North Dakota and members of a very different agricultural community: an urban farm cooperative. In the case of this particular urban farm cooperative, land was placed in a trust to support urban agriculture and leased to members on a sliding scale. I promised not to divulge the cooperative’s location in order to elicit participation within this group.

I wanted to know how these two communities talked and thought about issues like sustainability and food security. I was also interested in how these group members, whose lives were focused on agriculture in very different ways, illustrated some of the divides in our country.

I had a hunch these groups differed in more ways than their zip codes and socio-economic backgrounds. The North Dakota group, for instance, was all white and predominately male, whereas the urban population was considerably more diverse. The study eventually made its way into the peer-reviewed journal, Rural Sociology.

As part of the study, I built four word clouds, visual representations of words I gathered from survey questions. If a picture is worth a thousand words, these particular images show more than thousands of sentences ever could: the divergent worldviews of these two groups. And they show us an angle of the aforementioned political divide that has been missed.

Individuals in each group were asked to “select three terms that describe what ‘social justice’ means to you” and “select three terms describing what ‘autonomy’ means to you.”

Before giving their answer, participants were shown a list of some 50 terms, designed by me to relate specifically to each question. Other terms were explored as well, but only two terms – social justice and autonomy – are discussed here because they complement each other in interesting ways.

The terms respondents chose were then fed into software that generated word clouds, which are graphics that show the most-used terms in large letters, the least-used terms in smaller letters. (Disclaimer: I make no claims that these clouds speak for all Americans, farmers, North Dakotans, metro residents, etc. I also recognize that the cooperative experience could color the responses of those in the urban sample.)

Individual vs. collective

Perhaps the most immediate contrast with these social justice responses lies in how the rural North Dakotans’ image evokes a number of words associated with punishment, policing and due process, such as “eye for an eye” and “right to attorney.” These are terms associated with criminal law and the criminal justice system.

The terms chosen by the urban land cooperative, in contrast, made no reference to punishment or policing when describing their visions of social justice. Instead, they chose terms that overwhelmingly emphasized, to quote the most used term to come from this group, equity.

Word clouds provided by Michael Carolan, CC BY

There was also a divergence between groups in terms of whether social justice was something individuals achieve or whether it denotes a collective response, where a community (or even society) as a whole ensures justice for individuals. To explain this point requires that I introduce two more word cloud images, produced in response to the autonomy question.

These autonomy word clouds demonstrate that the above contrasts are no fluke and are important for two reasons. First, they validate that there is something “deeper” afoot. And second, they inform the social justice images.

Note the repeated emphasis the North Dakota group placed on terms like “individualism,” “self-determination,” “self-rule” and “authority.” In philosophical parlance, these terms align with the tradition of individualism, a position that emphasizes self-reliance and that stresses human independence and liberty.

Word clouds provided by Michael Carolan, CC BY

These terms also tie in well with the North Dakota group’s social justice word cloud, with its emphasis on words that emphasize individual responsibility, e.g., “eye for an eye,” and individual freedoms, “fair laws” and “right to attorney.”

This stands a world away from the urban farmer cooperative group, who associated autonomy with “interdependence,” “cooperation,” “solidarity” and “community.” It might appear counterintuitive to link autonomy with concepts like interdependence and solidarity, until you hear individuals from this group explain their position.

A single mother, for example, spoke directly to how independence arises for members of this group because of interdependence, rather than in spite of it.

“We can accomplish a heck of a lot more together; I feel like I have more control over my life, more independence, when we can rely on each other.” She added, “I certainly appreciate how sharing childcare opportunities as a community gives me the freedom to garden. But we can’t forget that farming has always been a collective effort, of sharing seed and knowledge and work.”

The cooperative group’s views of social justice focused significantly on community outcomes and injustices as opposed to purely individual ones. This point about the urban group expressing something resembling a collectivist understanding of social justice came out especially clear in the qualitative interviews with members of the cooperative.

Among the members’ statements was one given by a man while he was erecting tomato cages with his two brothers, uncle and another man who 12 months prior was living in his home country of Costa Rica. Asked what social justice meant to him, he said, “Justice isn’t about charity; it’s about community empowerment; not about what you’re given but about intentionally realizing your aspirations collectively.”

Disagreements can lead to dialogue

The above images reflect disagreements, to be sure, and contextualize our inability to find common ground on such issues as climate change, guns and the social safety net. If one starts from the premise that an individual can only make good, right and just decisions when they’re left alone, then their position on those hot bottom issues will look a lot different from those who think individual freedom is enhanced when those liberties are balanced out by constraints determined by ideas about the collective good. In short, consensus is a stretch when one “side” preaches self-reliance and self-rule while the other speaks of “independence” and needing to “rely on each other” in the same sentence, as the mother from the cooperative did.

So what does this study of these two groups and their ideas mean? Does bridging the political divide in the U.S. mean groups like this need to settle all of their political disputes and arrive at consensus about everything?

Of course not. Disagreements are good when they encourage dialogue and debate.

What we have now in our country appears to sometimes border on combativeness if not outright hate, which has me deeply concerned, both as a sociologist and a citizen.

Before we can hope to repair the divides (plural, since these differences clearly go beyond rural-urban) we need to first understand how deep they cut. You wouldn’t prescribe a Band-Aid for a gash that requires stitches. The following are three concluding thoughts as we triage this wound.

Replace caricatures with actual encounters

First, the opposing worldviews illustrated in the word clouds have less to do with each group having different levels of knowledge and more to do with processing knowledge through very different filters. Thus, settling political disputes by arguing over “the facts” is futile, at least in some instances.

Second, a few respondents from each group appeared to be straddling “worlds.” People like this can be very helpful in bridging our political divides. Instead of building alliances based on geopolitical identities (e.g., ethnicity, political affiliation, rural/urban), we might explore how this process could start by engaging those who, like these few respondents, share similar worldviews.

Third, these worlds risk growing further apart the more their respective inhabitants look inward. The alternative would involve creating situations where we can get to know some of the people and livelihoods that are a world away from what we otherwise experience. That means the caricatures of rural and urban America need to be replaced with actual encounters.

Whoever thinks fences make for good neighbors has been infected by today’s political climate. What we need are bridges. It is time we start building them – and walking across the political divide.

Michael Carolan receives funding from the National Research Foundation of Korea and by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture .